Budget. 2004-2006.

Fox Theater - 1950’ s
Fox Theater - Today
Adopted Budget
2004- 2006
Main & Broadway - San Francisco Earthquake 1906
Main & Broadway - Today
Fire Station on Middlefield Road – 1920- 1987
Main Library on Middlefield Road - Today
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED BUDGET
2004- 2006
CITY COUNCIL
Jeff Ira, Mayor
Barbara Pierce, Vice Mayor
Jim Hartnett, Council Member
Diane Howard, Council Member
Ira Ruskin, Council Member
Ian Bain, Council Member
Rosanne Foust, Council Member
CITY MANAGER
Edward P. Everett
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE and FINANCIAL PLANNING
Brian J. Ponty
COMPILED BY
Alison Freeman, Financial Services Manager
Irv Weinstock, Gloria del Rosario, Kyi Khin, Senior Accountants
Jill Greenhorn, Accountant
Sandy Jennings, Administrative Assistant
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS
City Manager .................................................................................. Edward Everett
Assistant to the City Manager......................................................... Magda Gonzalez
City Attorney .................................................................................. Stan Yamamoto
City Clerk........................................................................................ Patricia Howe
Community Development Services ................................................ Joel Patterson
Finance and Financial Planning ...................................................... Brian Ponty
Fire .................................................................................................. Gerald Kohlmann
Human Resources ........................................................................... Maria Rivera- Peña
Library............................................................................................. David Genesy
Parks, Recreation and Community Services................................... Corinne Centeno
Police .............................................................................................. Carlos Bolanos
Public Works Services .................................................................... Peter Ingram
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADOPTED BUDGET – 2004- 2006
Introduction Page
Budget Message.................................................................................................................... i
City Manager’s Budget Recommendations and
Possible Budget Options for City Council Consideration ............................................ vii
Five Year Financial Projections.......................................................................................... ix
General Fund Five Year Projection - 2004/ 05 through 2005/ 06 ......................................... x
Overview
Budget Summary:
Operating Budget Summary by Department ....................................... Budget Summary - 1
Analysis of Budget by Fund ................................................................ Budget Summary - 2
Budget Summary by Department by Fund .......................................... Budget Summary - 6
General Fund Graphs......................................................................... Budget Summary - 10
Revenue Estimates 2004/ 05 and 2005/ 06.......................................... Budget Summary - 17
Property Tax ...................................................................................... Budget Summary - 22
Utility Users’ Tax .............................................................................. Budget Summary - 23
Sales Tax............................................................................................ Budget Summary - 24
Appropriation Limit........................................................................... Budget Summary - 25
Personnel Allocation by Department................................................. Budget Summary - 26
City Council Priorities ........................................................................ City Council Priorities - 1
Neighborhood Services Survey ............................................... Neighborhood Services Survey - 1
Performance Measures........................................................................ Performance Measures - 1
Operating Programs - Budget by Departments
City Council
Department Overview................................................................................ City Council - 2
Sub- Programs ............................................................................................ City Council - 2
City Manager
Department Summary............................................................................... City Manager - 2
Department Overview............................................................................... City Manager - 3
Objectives ................................................................................................. City Manager - 4
Sub- Programs ........................................................................................... City Manager - 5
City Attorney
Department Overview............................................................................... City Attorney - 2
Sub- Programs ........................................................................................... City Attorney - 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADOPTED BUDGET – 2004- 2006
Operating Programs - Budget by Departments ( Continued)
City Clerk
Department Summary................................................................................... City Clerk - 2
Department Overview................................................................................... City Clerk - 3
Objectives ..................................................................................................... City Clerk - 4
Performance Measures ................................................................................................. City Clerk - 5
Sub- Programs ............................................................................................... City Clerk - 7
Community Development Services
Department Summary........................................................................................... CDS - 2
Department Overview........................................................................................... CDS - 3
Objectives ............................................................................................................. CDS - 4
Performance Measures.......................................................................................... CDS - 7
Sub- Programs ..................................................................................................... CDS - 13
Finance
Department Summary....................................................................................... Finance - 2
Department Overview....................................................................................... Finance - 3
Objectives ......................................................................................................... Finance - 4
Performance Measures...................................................................................... Finance - 5
Sub- Programs ................................................................................................... Finance - 8
Fire
Department Summary............................................................................................ Fire - 2
Department Overview............................................................................................ Fire - 3
Objectives .............................................................................................................. Fire - 4
Performance Measures........................................................................................... Fire - 6
Sub- Programs ...................................................................................................... Fire - 10
Human Resources
Department Summary......................................................................... Human Resources - 2
Department Overview......................................................................... Human Resources - 3
Objectives ........................................................................................... Human Resources - 4
Performance Measures........................................................................ Human Resources - 5
Sub- Programs ..................................................................................... Human Resources - 9
Library
Department Summary....................................................................................... Library - 2
Department Overview....................................................................................... Library - 3
Objectives ......................................................................................................... Library - 4
Performance Measures...................................................................................... Library - 6
Sub- Programs .................................................................................................. Library - 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADOPTED BUDGET – 2004- 2006
Operating Programs - Budget by Departments ( Continued)
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department Summary......................................................................................... PRCS - 2
Department Overview......................................................................................... PRCS - 3
Objectives ........................................................................................................... PRCS - 4
Performance Measures........................................................................................ PRCS - 6
Sub- Programs ................................................................................................... PRCS - 10
Police
Department Summary......................................................................................... Police - 2
Department Overview......................................................................................... Police - 3
Objectives ........................................................................................................... Police - 4
Performance Measures........................................................................................ Police - 6
Sub- Programs ................................................................................................... Police - 11
Public Works Services
Department Summary.......................................................................................... PWS - 2
Department Overview.......................................................................................... PWS - 3
Objectives ............................................................................................................ PWS - 4
Performance Measures......................................................................................... PWS - 6
Sub- Programs ...................................................................................................... PWS - 8
General Budget Information
Explanation of Budget Process............................................. General Budget Information - 2
Fund Descriptions................................................................. General Budget Information - 2
Fixed Assets Detail by Department ...................................... General Budget Information - 6
Schedule of Interfund Transfers ........................................... General Budget Information - 8
Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Improvements by Funding Source ............................................................ CIP - 2
This page left blank intentionally
Office of the City Manager 1017 Middlefield Road
Edward P. Everett P. O. Box 391
City Manager Redwood City, CA 94064
www. redwoodcity. org
Phone ( 650) 780- 7300
TDD ( 650) 780- 7208
Fax ( 650) 780- 7225
i
City of
Redwood City’s
values
June 3, 2004
Honorable Mayor Ira and Members of the City Council:
INTRODUCTION AND ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
Declines in sales tax revenues from structural and economic causes, an extended downturn in the local
economy, a continuation of State raids on local treasuries, and increasing employee benefit costs have
collectively put Redwood City in the midst of its most challenging financial times.
While the proposed budget reflects substantial reductions in expenditures and service level reductions, it still
leaves us with a $ 4.1 million operating deficit ( projected annual expenditures exceeding annual projected
revenues) for FY 2004/ 05 and a forecasted operating deficit of $ 5.7 million for FY 2005/ 06. The
recommended FY 2004/ 05 budget is the third successive budget in which departments have been asked to make
expenditure reductions. FY 2004/ 05 will also be the third successive year in which the City is spending more
out of its general fund than the revenues it receives in this fund.
The Council’s fiscal forecast in earlier years have enabled the City to accumulate significant reserves upon
which the City is relying very heavily. Caution should be exercised as these reserves are now being consumed.
Without significant corrective action in balancing expenditures with revenue, our reserves will be dangerously
reduced in the years ahead.
We do not see the current circumstance as one from which we will quickly grow our way out. The local
economy is showing little signs of expansion as evidenced by the job growth and commercial real estate
vacancies. San Mateo County employment reached a peak in November 2000 at 401,600 jobs and a low point
of 348,300 jobs in May 2003. As of April 2004, the most recent data available showed an estimated 349,600
jobs in the County. Santa Clara County, an area to which our economic fortunes are closely linked, reached its
peak of 1,006,500 jobs in December 2000 and the trough with 812,900 jobs in January 2004. As of April 2004,
813,600 jobs were reported in Santa Clara County.
Earlier this year the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG) reported that between 2000 and 2003, the
nine county bay area region lost over 268,600 jobs. ABAG forecasts a very modest increase of 16,770 jobs in
2004 and 32,890 jobs in 2005.
According to a report released by BT Commercial Real Estate, as of March 2004 the Redwood City, including
Redwood Shores, commercial office real estate markets had 3.1 million square feet of vacant office space for a
vacancy factor of 31.5%. Moreover, Redwood City was continuing to experience an increase in office
vacancies though the first quarter of this year. Countywide the vacancy rate in San Mateo County was 26.6%,
down slightly from the December 2003 rate of 27.9%.
Clearly, the foregoing data paints a picture that shows the local economy, which at its best, is scraping along
the bottom. When and how strong the next expansion will be are very significant unknowns at this time.
GENERAL FUND
Revenues
General fund revenues ( including transfers into the general fund) are expected to increase modestly to $ 62.3
million ( or 1.9%) in FY 2004/ 05 from $ 61.1 million in FY 2003/ 04. In FY 2005/ 06, revenues are expected to
increase 1.8% to $ 63.4 million.
Excellence:
Passion
to do our
Best in Each
Moment
Build a Great
Community
Together
ii
The major assumptions behind these revenue estimates are:
• No additional cuts from the State other than the $ 1.5 million that is included in the Governor’s proposed
( May 2004) budget. Our preliminary understanding is that the source of these reductions will be from
sales tax, vehicle license fees, and property tax. The exact amount by which each of these revenues will be
reduced is unknown at this time. Accordingly, we have not adjusted our revenue estimates for these items
but have included a -$ 1.5 million revenue item labeled “ State Takeaway” in our revenue projections to
reflect the effect of this reduction. Please see the section titled “ State Impact” for more discussion on this
subject.
• Sales tax will recover modestly ( 3% increase in FY 2004/ 05 and 3.5% in FY 2005/ 06) and that there is no
further erosion in our business- to- business sales tax revenues.
• Property tax revenues will increase about 4% in FY 2004/ 05 and 4% in FY 2005/ 06 as the result of
continued strength in the residential real estate market and that there is no further significant erosion in the
assessed valuations of commercial properties.
Barring intervention by the courts, the State will be implementing the “ triple flip” provision of Proposition 57
( the initiative approved by the voters that enabled the State to issue its “ Economic Recovery Bonds” to pay off
the bills from its spending binge), which was approved by the voters in March of this year. For cities this
means that the State will take 25% of our sales tax revenue and replace it dollar- for- dollar with property tax
revenue. This will not reduce our revenues, but will likely cause cash flow delays depending on how the final
mechanics of this swap operate. Also, we are trusting that the State will honor its promise to make this swap
revenue neutral. Trusting a political entity that has in recent history viewed local governments as ATMs is
risky.
One bright spot in our revenues has been the recent growth in the City’s transient occupancy tax ( TOT) or hotel
tax. Due to the voter- approved tax rate increase from 8% to 10% in November 2003 and improved
performance in the local hotel industry, we are forecasting an increase in TOT revenue of $ 241,000 ( or 13%) to
$ 2 million in FY 2004/ 05 over FY 2003/ 04.
Sales tax revenue continues to drag along the bottom with only modest increases expected in the next fiscal
year. We believe this is reflective of a stagnant local economy. Although not factored into this budget, we
remain very concerned about future losses of sales tax revenue due to the electronic delivery of software by
local businesses engaged in software sales. Should a significant sales tax decline become evident in FY
2004/ 05 or FY 2005/ 06, staff will advise Council and provide options for dealing with this.
The following graph illustrates the performance of locally generated sales tax revenues ( which accounts for
about 95% of our total sales tax revenues) for the past 16 quarters. The key story here is the decline of
“ business- to- business” sales tax revenues. While a portion of this decline is due to the recession in the local
economy, a substantial component of this decline is the electronic delivery of software and other businesses
leaving the area or going out of business.
City of Redwood City
Sales Tax by Economic Category
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
1Q00 2Q00 3Q00 4Q00 1Q01 2Q01 3Q01 4Q01 1Q02 2Q02 3Q02 4Q02 1Q03 2Q03 3Q03 4Q03
Business- to- Business Transportation General Retail Food Products Construction Miscellaneous
Build a Great
Community
Together
Integrity:
Do the Right
Thing,
Not the Easy
Thing
iii
Expenditures
Despite $ 5.1 million in recommended expenditure reductions, expenditures ( including transfers to other funds)
are still expected to increase 4.4% from $ 63.6 million in FY 2003/ 04 to $ 66.4 million in FY 2004/ 05 and 4.0%
to $ 69.1 million in FY 2005/ 06. Offsetting these reductions were higher costs of over $ 1.1 million in
expenditures related to the City’s workers’ compensation insurance program. Higher employee benefit costs
are the key drivers here. Contributions to the California Public Employees Retirement System are up due to
investment losses and improved retirement benefits to police and fire. Although the recommended budget calls
for $ 5.1 million in expenditure reductions from the general fund’s base budget, the net reduction from the base
budget is $ 3.9 million.
Although there have been recent reforms to the State laws that govern the workers’ compensation system, we
are uncertain as to any savings that the City will realize in the next two fiscal years. It is worth noting that
these reforms did not extend to the presumptive injuries and illnesses for public safety employees which will
likely continue to be a significant general fund expense.
Another expenditure that is rapidly growing is the cost of providing health insurance for employees and
retirees. In FY 2004/ 05, we foresee spending about $ 4.3 million ( or 6.6% of general fund expenditures) on
health benefits and $ 4.9 million ( or 7.2% of general fund expenditures) in FY 2005/ 06. Controlling these costs
will require the organization to consider alternatives to the CalPERS health insurance system.
Given the breadth and depth of the recommended expenditure reductions, a separate section of the budget
document has been prepared which deals exclusively with staff’s recommended budget reductions. This
section appears immediately after this letter.
Transfers
Included are the " normal" transfers from the general fund to the traffic safety fund ($ 962,000), and the water
fund ($ 130,000) in FY 2004/ 05 with similar amounts in FY 2005/ 06.
State Impact
The Governor’s proposed budget reflects his agreement with the League of California Cities to support a
constitutional amendment that he will urge the legislature to place on the November 2004 ballot and will cause
the City to lose $ 1.5 million each year in FY 2004/ 05 and FY 2005/ 06. In FY 2006/ 07, these funds will no
longer be taken by the State so accordingly we should expect our revenues to increase by $ 1.5 million in FY
2006/ 07.
Based on the budget the Governor proposed in January 2004, staff had estimated that the City would lose about
$ 1 million in FY 2004/ 05 and in all following years.
The Governor’s proposal has been factored into our budget. Several conditions must, however, be met before
the Governor’s proposal becomes a reality: 1) This proposal must be approved by the legislature and the
constitutional amendment placed on the November 2004 ballot, and 2) the proposed constitutional amendment
must then be approved by the voters in November.
To further complicate and confuse the question of how much money the City will lose to the State is that the
League’s sponsored LOCAL ( Leave Our Community Assets Local) initiative has qualified and will appear on
the November 2004 ballot. This ballot measure offers similar long- term revenue protections to local
government but goes into effect sooner and does not provide for local governments to lose any revenue to the
State in FY 2004/ 05 and FY 2005/ 06.
The bottom line is that we will not have a clear understanding until after the November 2004 election as to how
much of our revenue we will lose to the State in FY 2004/ 05.
General Fund Reserves
Since FY 2002/ 03, revenues have not kept pace with expenditures. The result has been the consumption of
$ 3.4 million in reserves through June 30, 2004.
We anticipate having $ 14.4 million in reserves as of June 30, 2004. Given the projected operating deficits in
each of the next two fiscal years and absent any further changes, the general fund will have $ 4.5 million in
reserves ( 7.2% of expected FY 2005/ 06 revenues) on June 30, 2006, which is the end of the upcoming two- year
budget cycle. This is well below the minimum 15% level called for in the Council’s policy on general fund
reserves and definitely below the comfort level of the City Manager and Finance Director.
Service:
We Care and
It Makes a
Difference
Build a Great
Community
Together
iv
Future Years
As you will see from the Five Year Projection, based on the best information currently available we foresee
deficits in FY 2006/ 07 through FY 2008/ 09. Given the magnitude of the anticipated deficits, it is reasonably
safe to say that absent a bushel full of positive financial news, budget cutting and service reductions will be an
ongoing process for Redwood City.
CAPITAL PROJECTS
With the economic downturn and the anticipated shortfall in Measure A revenues, the proposed Capital
Improvement Program ( CIP) for the next two years has been trimmed in some ongoing replacement programs
and the Roadway Management Program. However, the CIP continues to emphasize the upgrade of essential
infrastructure such as roofs, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, carpet, painting, sidewalk, storm
drainage, lagoon dredging, and technology.
For the FY 2004/ 2005 and FY 2005/ 2006 CIP, the proposed budget for the capital project fund, gas tax
construction fund, transportation fund, grants and fees fund, water improvement fund, sewer improvement fund,
General Improvement District 1- 64, and the Redevelopment Agency totals $ 13,132,014 and $ 10,137,000,
respectively.
Seven ( 7) multi- million dollar projects and programs are already in progress and will take multi- year efforts for
design and construction. They are:
1. Recycled Water Program
2. Downtown Courthouse Plaza
3. Ralston Avenue/ Route 101 Interchange
4. Friendly Acres/ Bayfront Canal Flood Control ( Phase IV & V)
5. Redwood Shores Library
6. Water Conservation Program
7. Downtown Parking Garage
In summary, with the continuation of all existing ongoing programs, the focus of the next two fiscal years’ CIP
will be on the following:
1. Redwood Shores Lagoon Dredging
2. Playfields Replacement
3. Water System Seismic and Security System Improvement
4. Storm Drainage Collection System Upgrade
5. Sidewalk Replacement Program
6. Roadway Management Program
7. Water/ Sewer Main Replacement Program
8. Geographic Information System ( GIS)
9. Street Light Installation Program
10. Redwood Shores Sewer Pump Station Renovation
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ( RDA)
The implementation of Council/ Agency priorities for downtown took major steps forward in FY 2003/ 04 with
the adoption of an almost $ 37 million multi- year funding plan and the issuance of tax increment bonds by the
Agency in October 2003. The proceeds of this bond issue, plus a loan from the City to the Agency, provide
the majority of the funding needed to complete a series of projects that address the Council/ Agency priorities
and actions related to downtown revitalization.
The work program and goals for FY 2003/ 04 continued the progress made in FY 2002/ 03. They included
activities related to public parking facilities to support downtown business and the retail/ cinema project,
planning and design work for the courthouse façade restoration and plaza projects, as well as streetscape
improvements, and implementation planning for the downtown area plan, such as directional signage and
gateway improvements, the downtown precise plan, a downtown parking management strategy, and planning
for special events and activities to mitigate construction impacts.
Build a Great
Community
Together
Creativity:
Freedom to
Imagine and
Courage to
Act
v
The proposed budget for FY 2004/ 05 basically continues the implementation of this multi- year funding plan.
Additional funding for the streetscape project ( primarily “ Theater Way”) is recommended, as well as an
operational budget to provide the administrative support and leadership necessary to see the projects completed.
In terms of affordable housing, the budget proposal increases funding for the El Camino/ Vera Street affordable
housing project in response to the proposal received from First Community Housing and Peninsula Habitat for
Humanity. Negotiations are underway for the transaction. Funding for unidentified affordable housing
projects is also included in the recommended budget.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water Fund
The water enterprise fund is in sound fiscal condition, with a $ 2 million emergency reserve at the beginning of
the fiscal year. Over $ 7 million of previously unappropriated fund balance has been budgeted to date for
additional future water supply ( including implementation of the recycled water project) in the water fund
capital improvement program. Most of the expenditures to date ( approximately $ 2 million) are reimbursable to
the fund via the subsequent sale of revenue bonds. The City Council will consider a financing plan for the $ 43
million recycled water project in the summer of 2004, and then make a series of policy decisions that would
ultimately restore the fund balance to an estimated $ 8 million.
On July 14, 2003, the City Council approved a resolution increasing the " lifeline" water rate from $ 0.88 to
$ 1.10 per unit, continuing the established practice of setting the Redwood City " lifeline" rate at the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission ( SFPUC) wholesale rate. The Council also approved a 3.5% increase to
the monthly basic service charge that provides the financial support for the operations and maintenance of the
City's water system from $ 10.80 to $ 11.17, driven primarily by increases in salaries and benefits. In order to
fund the first year of the new, multi- year “ active” water conservation program including a major toilet
replacement and rebate program, the Council also increased all water conservation usage rates for all customer
classes in order to raise $ 1.4 million in additional revenues to pay for the new conservation measures.
Sewer Fund
The sewer enterprise fund remains in sound fiscal condition, with a $ 1 million emergency reserve.
On July 14, 2003, the City Council approved an increase in the sewer service charge from $ 20.35 to $ 21.45.
The 5.4% increase was driven primarily by increases in salaries and benefits and a projected increase of 3.2%
for sewage treatment services provided by South Bayside System Authority.
APPROPRIATIONS LIMITS
Article XIIIB of the California Constitution defines and establishes the City’s appropriations limit. No city in
California may spend from its “ proceeds of taxes” more than the amount of its “ appropriations limit." The
appropriations limit is determined by a formula contained within Article XIIIB. Redwood City’s
appropriations limit for FY 2004/ 05 is estimated to be $ 202,894,813. The FY 2004/ 05 appropriations subject
to limitations are $ 51,418,325. We are well within our legal limit.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document reflects the toils and deliberations of many throughout the organization, especially the executive
team. I want to thank the budget committee of Magda Gonzalez, Assistant to the City Manager, Corinne
Centeno, Assistant City Manager, and Brian Ponty, Finance Director for their strategic thinking and thorough
reviews of the departmental budget requests. Laura Snidemen is to be commended for her efforts in organizing
and managing the performance measurement and benchmarking elements of this process.
My sincere appreciation and thank you to the very talented Finance Department team: Alison Freeman,
Financial Services Manager; Senior Accountants, Irv Weinstock, Gloria del Rosario, and Kyi Khin; Jill
Greenhorn, Accountant; Senior I. T. Analyst Debbie Matsuura; and Supervisor of Software Development
Services Faith Marte- Kroeger. Their relentless " number crunching," analysis, and attention to details has made
this budget document possible. My compliments to Sandy Jennings, Administrative Assistant to the Finance
Director, for her patience, talents, and long hours to publish the document you have before you.
Build a Great
Community
Together
viii
The departments did a brilliant job in thinking through the proposed cuts. No department did an “ across the board” cut ( i. e. cutting
every division by 15%). All cuts being proposed are based on the following Council criteria:
1. Having the least impact on services to citizens
2. Council’s listed priorities
3. Trying to prevent, if possible, lay- offs
4. Paying attention to collaborating between departments and with outside agencies wherever possible
Redwood City government is getting smaller, and consequently we are reducing the services to our community. A summary of
service level reductions that Council made FY 2003/ 04 are included in Attachment II. The table below provides the perspective of
how our workforce has been reduced since July 2001. Total full time equivalent positions in the general fund and related funds:
• FY 2001/ 02 489 FTEs
• FY 2002/ 03 496 FTEs
• FY 2003/ 04 485 FTEs
• FY 2004/ 05 444 FTEs
Even with the reduction in FTEs listed above, Redwood City is facing an estimated deficit of $ 5.7 million in FY 2005/ 06, based on
the City Manager’s Recommended Budget.
This year, the City Manager’s Recommended Budget causes the layoff of three ( 3) people, cuts back one person to half- time, and
reduces hours of several people by approximately 25%. We met Council’s desires regarding layoffs as most of the positions were
reduced by using: A) existing vacancies, B) retirements, C) separation incentive program, D) voluntary time off ( VTO), E) cutting
contract positions, and F) cutting casual hours.
Attachment I ( following the charts) is a summary presentation for each department. The format, with four sections, is the same for
each department. The first section will summarize the 4% or 15% reductions, what the City Manager “ accepted,” and what was
“ added back” to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget. This section explains the departments’ proposed cuts. The second
section explains the City Manager’s Recommended Budget and what it entails. The third section contains options for further
reductions to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget. The fourth section contains options for “ add- backs” to the City
Manager’s Recommended Budget. All of these figures are rounded to the nearest thousand for simplicity. Pending Council action,
actual precise figures will be entered into the budget.
The staff has done its best to portray an enormous amount of data in a manner that is helpful and useful to Council, and hopefully
provides you with a clear picture without being mired in too much detail. We have tried to clearly provide the Council with
options and alternatives to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget. Staff respects and understands the tough choices that the
Council will have to make. I encourage you to call any of the department heads, or anyone on the budget committee ( Brian,
Corinne, Magda, or myself) and we will respond to your questions. We wish you well in your decision making and stand ready to
fully support your decisions.
AI- 1
“ Attachment I”
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Council
City Manager
Finance
Human Resources
Community Development Services
Fire
Library
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Police
Public Works Services
AI- 2
City Attorney
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 108K
City Manager accepted 15% = $ 108K
City Manager added back = $ 0
Department Proposed Reductions
Stan was able to achieve their 15% reduction in the general fund by charging some of the City Attorney’s time to the
Redevelopment Agency budget and some of the Assistant City Attorney’s time to the CIP budget. Both of these are appropriate
charges as they reflect actual time which both positions are spending in these programs. The legal administrator position is taking
voluntary time off ( VTO) of 20%. The budget for contracting with outside attorneys has been cut based on the last two years’
actual experience. If Redwood City were to need additional outside legal services for matters such as legal transactions or
litigations, then the Council would need to augment this line item.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager recommends that the entire 15% or $ 108K be cut for the department’s budget.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager is not proposing any options for additional cuts to this budget.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager is not proposing any optional add backs to the recommended budget.
AI- 3
City Clerk
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 72K
City Manager accepted 5% = $ 24K
City Manager added back = $ 48K
Department Proposed Reductions
To achieve the 15% reduction, Patricia eliminated an administrative secretary position completely. This in effect cuts the staff by
30% and could cause significant delays and loss of service to Council and to the public. ( i. e., no front counter or 100% telephone
coverage; delay in responding to citizen requests, disruption of City’s record retention program.)
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager is recommending a reduction of $ 24K which is a combination of reclassifying the administrative secretary
position to a secretary and reducing legal advertising to the basic legal minimum required as well as cuts to supplies and services.
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget keeps the full- time secretary position.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wants to make the additional cuts you would have to eliminate the full- time secretary position. This would require
the City Clerk’s office to do only a few basic functions: Council agenda, minutes, and legal advertising, and transfer to other
departments ( who are also being cut) certain functions the City Clerk is now doing ( i. e., management of Citywide records retention
system or overseeing the audio/ visual presentations at Council meetings); or eliminate these functions. Time available to handle
City Council, Department Head or citizen request would be very minimal.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager is not proposing any optional add backs to the recommended budget.
AI- 4
City Council
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 28K
City Manager accepted 13% = $ 24K
City Manager added back = $ 4K
Department Proposed Reductions
Short of cutting “ employees” ( Council members) from seven to five, which I didn’t think would be good for my own career status,
there was not much to cut. All cuts came from supplies and services. The City will no longer reimburse Council members to
attend League of California Cities or other very important conferences and seminars. The City’s contribution to Redwood City
International was eliminated.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget keeps $ 2K for a significantly downsized recognition event for members of your
Boards, Committees and Commissions, and $ 2K for some professional facilitation services ( i. e., recycled water task force or other
type of activities).
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wants to make further cuts, the City Manager would recommend that they remove the $ 4K stated above in the
recommended budget. The impact is pretty clear there will be no recognition event for Boards, Committees and Commissions, and
no ability to provide professional facilitation for any Citywide issues, such as that provided for the recycled water task force.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could restore conferences and travel reimbursement ($ 6K) or contributions to Redwood City International
approximately ($ 4K).
AI- 5
City Manager’s Department
Department’s 15% reduction: $ 158K
City Manager accepted 10% = $ 106K
City Manager added back = $ 53K
Department Proposed Reductions
In order to achieve this level of reduction, the department will make the following cuts:
􀂏 .50 FTE Management Analyst cut to .15 FTE
􀂏 FTE Public Communication Manager ( PCM) cut to .80 FTE ( selling 20% of Public Communication Manager’s time to
Public Works Services department to assist in public information for water conservation efforts)
􀂏 Reduction of data management hours by 15%
􀂏 Reduction in casual hours by 33%
Temporarily suspend the following contracts:
􀂏 Chamber of Commerce – ($ 27K)
􀂏 Peninsula Policy Partnership ( P3) – ($ 11K)
􀂏 Peninsula Celebration Association ( PCA) – ($ 5K)
Contracts Reduction:
􀂏 Redwood City Family Centers – $ 13.5K
􀂏 Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center ( PCRC) – $ 11.5K
􀂏 Redwood City 2020 ( RC2020) – $ 3.3K
􀂏 Citizen Survey – $ 3.3K
􀂏 Chamber Leadership – .5K
We will also:
􀂏 Significantly reduce the conference budget
􀂏 Eliminate the Mayor’s Beautification Awards
􀂏 Reduce the Pride and Beautification Committee budget
􀂏 Eliminate funding for consultants for department head retreats
The reduction for the Management Analyst from .50 to .15 means barely keeping ICMA performance measures alive ( which it still
may not do). The reduction of the Public Communication Manager’s time will mean less time for general community and media
outreach, and legislative activities, less time available for community programs, such as PACT and Community Builders, and
fewer special media/ community outreach projects for all City departments.
It is tough to suspend or reduce the community contracts, but unfortunately much of this budget is all about tough choices. The
Chamber of Commerce has been able to expand membership the last few years and has ended up with reserves so we believe they
can handle a suspension for a couple of years. Peninsula Policy Partnership ( P3) as you all know is a countywide group, but I
believe there are other county groups that are working on similar issues.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget adds back the Management Analyst position up to a .30 FTE level ($ 16K) as this will
assure that we do not lose the performance measurement effort, and provide analysis and full utilization of the neighborhood
survey. This person can also assist in monitoring legislative bills since the Public Communications Manager will have less time to
do so. I recommend adding back the Public Communications Manager to a funding level of .85 FTE ($ 6K). Finally, I added back
casual hours ($ 9.6), so we can provide minimal clerical support to the Public Communications Manager and the Management
Analyst. Redwood City has one of the smallest, if not the smallest City Manager staff on the Peninsula.
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget adds back small amounts totaling ($ 18K) to several community contracts, including
PCRC, RC 2020, and Redwood City Family Centers, and additional money ($ 2K) for consultant and miscellaneous services.
I am also recommending that half of the Chambers contract be reinstated in the Redevelopment budget and that the Chamber focus
its efforts in the Redevelopment/ downtown area.
AI- 6
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wants to make additional cuts, it could eliminate the .30 FTE Management Analyst position completely ($ 33K). We
would then drop out the ICMA Performance Measure Program. Council can also cut Redwood City Family Centers by an
additional ($ 9K). This program is jointly funded by the Redwood City School District, San Mateo County, and the Sequoia High
School District, and a cut here would likely cause the others to follow suit and make the impact three times greater than our
individual cut. Council may also elect to eliminate the PCRC contract ($ 13K).
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could add back more money to the Management Analyst position to bring it back to a half- time position ($ 22K). The
Council could add back all or some of the community contracts: Chamber of Commerce ($ 13.5K), Peninsula Policy Partnership
( P3) ($ 11K), Peninsula Celebration Association ($ 5K), Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center ($ 7.7K), Redwood City Family
Centers ($ 4.5K).
AI- 7
Finance Department
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 139K
City Manager accepted 11.5% = $ 107K
City Manager added back = $ 32K
Department Proposed Reductions
The Financial Services Division is the section of the Finance Department that we are addressing here, because it’s in the general
fund. Brian proposed cutting one account clerk position by 33% ( accounts payable function), one account clerk position by 17%
( payroll benefits function), and one account technician position by 15% ( general accounting bank reconciliation). The department
also eliminated all casual hours and almost all of the overtime hours. They also shifted 25% of the senior accountant to the Capital
Improvement Plan ( CIP), where that accountant is presently spending his time to track CIP costs and to meet numerous grant
requirements. These cuts will affect the accounts payable, payroll benefits, and the general bank reconciliation. Brian believes
with these cuts the department can still meet minimal financial checking and auditing requirements.
Service level impacts are: 1) eliminate employee drop- ins regarding payroll questions and requests, 2) eliminate our ability to “ cost
out” a long list of union proposals during negotiations with the City’s five unions, 3) eliminate the processing of “ special checks”
to speed payment to small businesses and vendors, 4) eliminate the review of accounts payable items submitted by departments,
and 5) eliminate the weekly check listing report to Council, converting this to an electronic report.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget is the following: return the accounts payable account clerk return to full- time ($ 22K).
The City needs to provide more than a “ cursory review” of account payable items. I am also recommending adding back
approximately $ 10K in overtime, to provide sufficient flexibility to deal with staff absences and still meet numerous mandated
financial deadlines.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could eliminate the two items discussed above that I have “ added back” to the budget.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could add back the 17% account clerk position ( payroll benefits function at $ 11K) and/ or the casual hours ($ 4K).
AI- 8
Human Resources
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 212K
City Manager accepted 15% = $ 212K
City Manager added back = $ 0K
Department Proposed Reductions
Maria eliminated two human resources technician positions to reach her 15% goal. This will lead to one lay off. Recruitments
have been reduced during these economic times. Human Resources will focus existing resources on managing the ever- expanding
and very expensive workers compensation program.
The department will eliminate the annual benefit statement and several classroom trainings. They will cut back on the service
awards program for employees, employee giving program, and background checks.
The department is working with IT to rely more on technology and remove some of their paperwork load.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget does not add anything back to this department and accepts all the proposed cuts.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
There are no options presented for additional cuts to this budget.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The highest priority for the department will be to add back one administrative clerk ($ 68K). The department will lose two human
resources technicians, and has already reduced their casual clerical support hours; hence, with some reorganization and increased
use of technology, the most important asset to the department would be to provide clerical support to the professionals. This
would ensure the remaining professional staff’s efficiency.
AI- 9
Community Development Services
Department’s 16.7% reduction = $ 777K
City Manager accepted 15.5% = $ 724K
City Manager added back = $ 53K
Department Proposed Reductions
The department cut 16.7% vs. the required 15%. In order to achieve their reductions, the department made the following cuts:
􀂏 They reorganized the clerical function and eliminated several positions ($ 110K)
􀂏 They moved one position to redevelopment and eliminated a planning position ($ 150K)
􀂏 They shifted some engineering positions to recycled water, CIP project ($ 250K)
􀂏 They significantly reduced code enforcement efforts ($ 173K)
􀂏 Other miscellaneous reductions ($ 94K)
What are the service level impacts of the above cuts? The department has already reorganized the clerical function and is learning
to work with less. One position has in fact been devoting almost 100% of its time to redevelopment, so we are just properly
coding that person’s time to redevelopment. The Public Works Services Director, Peter Ingram is working with the Community
Development Services Director, Joel Patterson so that he will have the appropriate engineering resources to undertake the large
recycled water construction processes that will soon be moving forward.
The reduction of one planner in the “ current projects” area means that we will not be processing violations of the signs
amortization program ( i. e., time limits for removal of illegal signs), and will be limiting the times that planners are available at the
front counter to help people understand permit requirements.
The department reduced code enforcement by two positions. Code enforcement would no longer process animal, noise, fence,
news racks, signs, and private property parking complaints. They would move some functions to the Fire department ( i. e., weed
abatement) and to the Police department ( i. e., graffiti and inoperable cars, vehicles, etc).
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget keeps the code enforcement function intact and at the present level.
I am doing this with some reorganization; reclassifying one position downward and eliminating a senior building inspector. The
net effect of this ($ 53K) is to keep the function operating at its present level.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could decide to reduce code enforcement by eliminating one CSO ($ 75K), and one building inspector ($ 98K), and
transferring some of the appropriate functions to both the fire department and the police department as appropriate.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could add back the vacant planner position ($ 95K), and or the senior building inspector ($ 120K).
AI- 10
Fire Department
Department’s 4% reduction = $ 516K
City Manager accepted 1.2% = $ 156K
City Manager added back = $ 360K
Department Proposed Reductions
In order to achieve a $ 516K reduction Gerry proposes expanding the number of shifts that Engine 9 ( E9) will be out of service
( OOS). We presently have E9 OOS for 60 shifts out of 365 days of the year. This proposal would take E9 OOS for 206 shifts.
When E9 is OOS, Truck 9 ( T9, at the same location) will then respond first- due to all medical calls with the truck company instead
of the engine company. T9 has been upgraded to Paramedic Status 100% of the time in order to assist with this issue. Taking E9
OOS will mean a slightly longer response time for an engine to respond into the downtown, and it will also mean fewer
inspections by the engine company, and more “ move ups” by Redwood City’s other engine companies if there were to be a fire
call involving E9. This “ moving up” can disrupt training and the fire prevention inspection work of other engine companies.
Taking E9 OOS for additional shifts will mean that our neighboring fire agencies may respond to Redwood City somewhat more
frequently.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget expands E9’ s time OOS from 60 shifts to 104 shifts ( instead of 206 shifts) or from
approximately 1.25 days a week OOS to approximately 2 days a week OOS. This recommendation is based on an analysis of the
departments’ calls per service work load by day of week. That data indicates that two days out of a week the department has lower
call volumes than the remaining five days of the week. The department will continue to use its existing criteria to determine the
best day to take E9 OOS.
This recommended service level also takes into account the existing/ proposed cuts by our neighboring fire departments. Why is
this important to consider? San Mateo County dispatch dropped the concept of using city boundaries for the dispatching of fire
and medical emergency calls. The closest engine is always dispatched regardless of city boundaries. If city “ A” was to close a
station, the neighboring city would respond as necessary. In order to keep a level of equity or balance, all neighboring cities need
to either keep their levels of service the same or cities should make service level cuts similar to one another. If cities A and C both
close a station and saved money, and City B ( situated between A & C) did not, then City B would be subsidizing cities A and C
reductions.
South County ( our fire agency to the north) has already eliminated their engine company in downtown San Carlos ( completely
OOS), and their truck company is running on medical calls similar to Redwood City’s. South County Fire has downgraded their
Alameda engine company to basic life support vs. paramedic life support about 30% of the time. Menlo Park has determined that
they will remove E1 ( Middlefield Road) from service 180 times ( during the nighttime hours) in FY 04- 05. As Redwood City,
South County Fire, and Menlo Park Fire Protection District take engines OOS then we will each be responding into the other
agencies’ jurisdictions more frequently.
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget is based on two rationales:
1. Redwood City has two days a week with lower calls for service. Redwood City Fire will have to manage the removal of
E9 from service an average of two days per week, based on our present criteria for removing an engine.
2. The City Manager’s recommendation attempts to maintain parity or equity with the actions of our neighboring agencies.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could decide to more accurately match the actions of our two neighboring fire jurisdictions and take E9 OOS for 206
shifts or for approximately 4.3 days a week ($ 360K).
Options for Council to Add Additional items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could decide not to expand E9’ s OOS time from 60 shifts to 104 shifts ($ 156K). This action however, in essence,
means that Redwood City will be subsidizing our neighbor’s fire department agencies budget cuts to some degree, as we would be
responding out of jurisdiction more frequently.
AI- 11
Library
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 808K
City Manager accepted 13.5% = $ 731K
City Manager added back = $ 77K
Department Proposed Reductions
In order to reach their 15% target, Dave proposes to close Schaberg branch library on Friday and the Fair Oaks branch library on
Saturday. He is eliminating a library outreach specialist, the school media specialist, a senior library assistant, a librarian, and a
division manager. All positions will be vacant next fiscal year. The library will also cut $ 200,000 from the casual budget which
will result in the elimination of on- call staff to help cover for youth services visiting school classrooms, some delays for checkouts
and for help by reference librarians, new materials will take longer to process and get out on the shelf, and it will take longer to
reshelf the existing collection. All staff will be asked to work more public desk hours.
The library will be unable to replace any of their PCs - even the constantly- used public computers. The department is also losing
their electronic services librarian which is important to them in keeping the library technologically up- to- date, and maintaining
their various software/ hardware systems, and to continue to automate processes that will free up staff resources.
The library is, however, continuing to staff the four homework centers, including the very popular teen homework center. They
will not reduce any hours at the main library, and they will continue to fund the Project Read programs. They will also maintain
the funds devoted to the purchasing of new materials ( i. e., books, magazines, audio- visual materials, etc.). The remaining casual
budget will continue to employ teens and other community members as library pages.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget adds back one- half school media specialist ($ 42K) as staff reached an agreement with
the Redwood City School District that they will fund the other half of this position. This is very important as it will keep the new
collections at all the schools current, and continue to train volunteers and school staff to professionally operate and keep open the
new library/ media centers at every school. This position also has the flexibility to assist the library’s youth service librarians in
outreach efforts to schools.
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget adds back some of the casual hours ($ 35K) so the library can move forward with
training library staff in preparing for self- checkout at all our libraries. This will allow the library to absorb staff reductions with
less impact. Through the Capital Improvement Program’s budget, the Library Director is planning to purchase self- checkout
machines, and make necessary physical changes to fully automate the entire checkout function and other self- service strategies.
The spending of some casual money will save us greater money in the long run.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could eliminate the one- half media specialist ($ 42K). If that happens the Redwood City School District would likely
not fund the other half. Council could also eliminate the casual hours, but that would be counter to implementing the automated
checkout system which saves staff time and money.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The first priority of the library would be to add back the electronic services librarian ($ 84K). This would assure that the library
maintains its important software and hardware systems and it will allow them to aggressively pursue using technology for
customer empowerment and streamlining of operations. The Council may wish to add back the one day closure at Schaberg and
Fair Oaks libraries ($ 32K). It is important to note that the library was very careful when they cut the days at both Schaberg and
Fair Oaks libraries. The department recommends closing each branch on the day with their lowest volume. They did not close
both branches the same day. They made sure that they did not cut the hours to the main library. Hence, if one particular branch
library is closed there will be another branch library to go to, and the main library would be available as an alternative.
AI- 12
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 1.7M
City Manager accepted 13.5% = $ 1.5M
City Manager added back = $ 169K
Department Proposed Reductions
In order to achieve a 15% reduction, Corinne had to eliminate approximately 19 full time equivalent ( FTE) positions. The 15%
reduction will cause the lay off of 1 employee. Listed below are the reductions that the department is making.
Landscape Maintenance Division
There is a reduction of 5.3 positions or a 16% loss of total labor dedicated to landscape maintenance. It will be important for the
City to aggressively pursue artificial turf fields ( recommended by the recycled water task force), remove turf in medians and
replace with low maintenance plantings, and shift ball- field preparation to the sports leagues as soon as possible in order to
mitigate the impacts of fewer landscape maintenance workers. This level of reduction would eliminate the special downtown
planter program. There will be a lower level of maintenance at all parks and medians.
Building Maintenance Division
A reduction of two FTEs – The department believes that we can handle basic preventative maintenance ( to protect our investment
in buildings) at this level, but no special projects or emergency repairs can be handled.
Custodial Services Division
A reduction of two FTEs means there will be less cleaning in the office areas of most City facilities, and they will be focusing the
remaining resources in highly used public areas. However, the public areas are going to look less well taken care of even with this
re- focusing of effort.
Human Services Division
Both the Human Services Financial Assistance ( HSFA) and the Civic Cultural Commission were cut by 15%.
Youth and Teen Services
Eliminate the Kid’s Klub daycare, reduce the childcare coordinator position to half time, and eliminate the summer drop- in free
program at Stulsaft, Stafford, and Mezes Parks. Impact: Dropping the Kids’ Klub may have more pluses than minuses for
Redwood City, as we are currently losing money on this particular program; and, our closure may actually help some other
childcare providers which are having difficulty filling their programs. The department believes that at half time, the childcare
coordinator can remain highly effective for Redwood City. It would, however, eliminate the amount of time this position spends
on Countywide childcare issues. Although we are cutting free drop- in recreation programs at three of the parks, two of the parks
are in areas where many parents can afford alternatives. We are keeping the programs at our after school sites open during the
summer. Those sites are: Taft, Hoover, Fair Oaks, Selby Lane, John Gill, and Hawes. It is still not clear whether space will be
available to continue the program on the Kennedy site. The program operating hours will remain the same; however we are
reducing the hours of the coordinators from 40 to 30 hours ( i. e. cutting back on preparation and planning time).
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget adds back one landscape position ($ 74 + $ 10K in supplies), and one custodian ($ 65K
+ $ 20K supplies). It is important to add back one landscape position to assure that the planting and the maintenance of downtown
is continued at the present service level. I also added back the custodian position, as I am very concerned about allowing our
exceedingly high- use buildings ( CAB, Red Morton, Veterans Memorial Senior Center, Fair Oaks Community Center, and the
Libraries) from becoming dirty and significantly unattractive. We are providing fewer services throughout the City- however, we
are keeping all of our public buildings open, and it is important to assure that the public areas are kept clean and inviting.
AI- 13
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could cut the landscape gardener position and supplies at $ 84K, and/ or the custodial position and supplies at $ 85K
that I have recommended in the budget.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wanted to add additional services to the Recommended Budget, the department recommends the following priorities
for add backs:
One landscape gardener, ($ 74K)
Bring the after school/ park coordinators back from 30 hours back to 40 hours, ($ 93K)
Childcare coordinator from .5 to .75 FTE, ($ 20K)
HHCC back to 03- 04 levels, ($ 24K)
Civic Cultural Commission back to the 03- 04 level, ($ 11K)
3/ 4 facility aide, ($ 43K)
AI- 14
Police Department
Department’s 4% reduction = $ 923K
City Manager accepted 3.4% = $ 768K
City Manager added back = $ 155K
Department Proposed Reductions
The department proposes the following actions to meet its 4% cut:
One sergeant – $ 204K
Two secretaries – $ 150K
Two patrol officers – $ 304K
Two community services officers ( CSOs) – $ 150K
One dispatcher – $ 98K
Miscellaneous supplies and services – $ 17K
Total of $ 923K
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager is recommending the following reductions:
One sergeant – $ 203K
Two secretaries – $ 150K
One patrol officer – $ 150K
Two community service officers ( CSOs) – $ 150K
One dispatcher – $ 98K
Miscellaneous supplies and services–$ 17K
Total of $ 768K
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget is based on the following reasons: the department will transfer either the Juvenile
Services Sergeant or the CCAT Sergeant and their responsibilities to patrol to make up for the loss of the patrol supervisor. This
will leave the same number of sergeants providing supervision on the patrol shifts.
The loss of the two secretaries will mean a redistribution of administrative workload throughout the department. It will take longer
to get some reports out, some phones will be answered by voice mail and there will likely be administrative backlogs. It will put
the department below the minimum in terms of secretarial staffing for a department of its size. The plan is to utilize records
personnel to mitigate some of the increased workload. The miscellaneous supplies and services reductions will be absorbed
throughout the department.
The loss of two CSOs will leave the department with nine CSOs and will reduce investigations and patrol by one CSO. It will
reduce flexibility in scheduling, allowing time- off, working special events and details. ( i. e. 4th of July, ‘ Tis the Season, etc.)
Patrol CSOs currently respond to calls that don’t require a police officer, allowing officers to focus on community oriented
policing activities. A reduction of community service officers in patrol will reduce the amount of time that patrol officers have
available for community oriented policing activities. Investigation CSOs handle fraud, hit- and- run and other investigations of a
less serious nature.
The original staffing study did not recommend an additional dispatcher but the Council at that time added one dispatcher anyway.
The loss of one dispatcher will bring the department to minimum recommended level of the original staffing study. By using a
combination of casual hours and overtime, the department will be able to maintain minimum staffing in the communications
center.
The original staffing study also recommended that four patrol officers be hired, which the Council approved. This
recommendation was based on two criteria: 1) all patrol officers should have 35% of their time available for other than calls for
service, so that they can be involved in proactive community policing activities and 2) the recommendation for hiring four officers
was based on the fact that all officers were working a 4/ 10 schedule ( 10 hours a day - four days a week). The report stated that the
AI- 15
4/ 10 schedule was the most inefficient work schedule. The report noted that if the department went to12 hour shifts there would
be no reason to hire additional patrol officers ( i. e. the department would be appropriately staffed).
Since the study was done, the department has gone to the more efficient 12 hour shifts ( three days a week), 43% of the time.
Carlos and I believe that we can cut one officer from the CCAT Unit without any affect on response times or health and safety
concerns.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wanted to make further cuts, they could reduce one additional dispatcher position ($ 98K). This would take us below
the recommended level and could cause more overtime than presently budgeted in order to maintain proper staffing. This would
also cause the department to look at a different schedule than the current one. The Council could also decide to cut an additional
CSO ($ 75K), from within the department which would further restrict the flexibility and scheduling of these people and further
reduce the amount of time available for officers to participate in community oriented policing activities.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wanted to add additional resources to the Police Department budget, they could add, in the following order:
One patrol officer $ 150K
One dispatcher $ 98K
Two community service officers $ 150K
AI- 16
Public Works Services
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 691K
City Manager accepted 13.2% = $ 606K
City Manager added back = $ 85K
Department Proposed Reductions
Peter achieved the 15% target in the general fund by proposing the following cuts, ( since there were quite a few, I will list only the
most significant cuts).
􀂏 A 25% reduction in scheduled crew availability for pavement repair.
􀂏 Impact: In the short term there will be more potholes and small pavement failures, and a longer response time for repairs. In
the long term there would be a gradual lowering of quality standards and the citywide pavement condition index
􀂏 A 50% reduction in the street tree leaf pickup.
􀂏 Impact: The likely clogging of catch basins during wet weather and the possibility that our street sweepers could not complete
their routes on any particular day, due to the amount of leaves that may accumulate in the gutter. There would be an increase
in complaints from the public.
􀂏 Eliminate the downtown festoon tree lighting.
􀂏 Impact: Would degrade the image of the downtown, especially at night, and there would most likely be complaints both from
citizens and business owners.
􀂏 A 25% reduction in crew availability for street drainage/ siphon cleaning.
􀂏 Impact: There could be some increased odor, and possibly some increase in mosquitoes, and consequently an increase in
general neighborhood complaints. Redwood City has this siphon system in two major parts of the city, Woodside Plaza and
Friendly Acres.
􀂏 A 25% reduction in budgeted contract services for street tree pruning.
􀂏 Impact: There would be a longer time between pruning cycles, and when we do provide this service, we would reduce the
amount of pruning we will do on most trees.
􀂏 Reduction in field inspection staffing for the sidewalk project.
􀂏 Impact: Delayed responses to sidewalk repair requests, and possible citizen frustration and/ or complaints. Aesthetics will
diminish slightly over time.
􀂏 A 20% reduction in traffic sign maintenance, and street curb painting.
􀂏 Impact: Would be mainly aesthetics in the short term, but may affect parking enforcement in the long term.
􀂏 A 50% reduction in street legend painting.
􀂏 Impact: Fewer legends painted on a preventative maintenance basis.
􀂏 A 35% reduction in the scheduled crew availability for cleaning lined creeks.
􀂏 Impact: Would be mostly aesthetics.
􀂏 Only replace traffic signal loops when there is full failure.
􀂏 Impact: Would be less signal efficiency, more complaints and some commuter frustration.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager has reinstated the first three reductions listed above. The pavement repair/ street crack sealing, and pothole
repair programs ($ 27K) - maintaining our valuable street infrastructure is crucial, and of great importance to our citizens. The
street tree leaf pickup program, ($ 40K) - this will minimize clogging of catch basins during wet weather, and reduce customer
complaints. In addition, the downtown festoon lighting was added back. I do not think that we should reduce the aesthetics of our
downtown just before we open the retail- cinema project ($ 18K).
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could cut any or all of the items that the City Manager has added back into the Recommended Budget ($ 85K for all).
AI- 17
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wants to add additional services to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget, the following are the priorities which
have been listed by the department for selection:
􀂏 Traffic signal loop replacement, $ 15K
􀂏 25% reduction in scheduled maintenance of street drainage and siphon, $ 9K
􀂏 50% reduction of street legend painting, $ 19K
􀂏 35% reduction of cleaning of lined creeks, $ 28K
􀂏 25% reduction of contract tree pruning service, $ 61K
AI- 18
Chart One
15% $ 108,000 15% $ 108,000 0% $ 0
15% $ 72,000 5% $ 24,000 10% $ 48,000
15% $ 28,000 13% $ 24,000 2% $ 4,000
15% $ 158,000 10% $ 106,000 5% $ 53,000
15% $ 139,000 11.5% $ 107,000 3.4% $ 32,000
15% $ 212,000 15% $ 212,000 0% $ 0
16.7% $ 777,000 15.5% $ 724,000 1.2% $ 53,000
4% $ 516,000 1.2% $ 156,000 2.8% $ 360,000
15% $ 808,000 13.5% $ 731,000 1.5% $ 77,000
15% $ 1,706,000 13.5% $ 1,537,000 1.4% $ 169,000
4% $ 923,000 3.4% $ 768,000 0.6% $ 155,000
15% $ 691,000 13.2% $ 606,000 1.8% $ 85,000
Totals: $ 5,103,000 $ 1,036,000
Library
$ 6,138,000
Police
Parks, Recreation &
Community Services
% / $ AMOUNT TAKEN
Community
Development Services
Fire
City Attorney
Public Works Services
Finance
% / $ AMOUNT INCLUDED IN
RECOMMENDED BUDGET
4% / 15%
REDUCTION
Human Resources
City Manager
City Clerk
City Council
DEPARTMENT
AI- 19
Chart Two
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Council
City Manager
Human Resources
Fire
Public Works Services
DEPARTMENT ADDITIONAL CUTS AMOUNT ( Thousands)
None $ 0
Community Contracts: PCRC
Redwood City Family Centers
Finance
Facilitation services
Remainder of .30 of Management Analyst position
Secretary position $ 86
BCC reception $ 2
Community
Development Services
Overtime
1 CSO
Police
Library 1/ 2 Media Specialist position
Take all casual hours proposed from cuts
Parks, Recreation &
Community Services
Total: $ 1,215
Festoon lights downtown $ 18
Eliminate leaf pick up
$ 27
1 Landscape Gardner $ 84
1 Janitor $ 85
$ 75
$ 40
Pavement repainting
$ 9
$ 35
1 CSO
1 Dispatcher position $ 98
$ 10
$ 0
$ 360
None
$ 33
$ 2
$ 42
1 Building Inspector $ 99
Take full 4%, takes E- 9 from 104 shifts recommended, to
206 shifts out of service
Take .30 of Account Clerk position $ 22
$ 75
$ 13
AI- 20
Chart Three
City Attorney None $ 0
City Clerk None $ 0
City Council Conference/ Travel ( presently removed from budget) $ 6
Redwood City International $ 4
City Manager Bring Management Analyst back to .50 $ 22
Refund Community Contracts: Chamber $ 27
P3 $ 11
PCA $ 5
PCRC ( back to 03/ 04) $ 13
Redwood City Family Centers ( back to 03/ 04) $ 4
.17 of Account Clerk position $ 11
Casual hours $ 4
Human Resources 1 Administrative Clerk $ 68
Senior Building Inspector $ 121
Planner $ 95
Fire Add back E- 9 to 03/ 04 service levels $ 156
Library Fill vacant Electronic Services Librarian $ 32
Restore 6th day at Fair Oaks/ Schaberg libraries $ 84
1 Landscape Gardner $ 75
After School Coordinators from 30 hours to 40 hours $ 93
Child Care Coordinator from .50 to .75 $ 20
HHCC ( back to 03- 04) $ 24
Civic Cultural Commission ( back to 03- 04) $ 11
1/ 2 Facility Aide $ 43
Police 1 Police Officer position $ 150
1 CSO $ 75
1 Dispatcher position $ 98
1 CSO $ 75
Traffic Signal Maintenance $ 15
$ 9
50% reduction of street legend painting $ 18
Crew availability to ( 03- 04)- creek cleaning $ 28
25% reduction in street tree pruning $ 61
Total: $ 1,458
25% reduction in scheduled maintenance of street drainage and
siphons
Public Works Services
Parks, Recreation &
Community Services
DEPARTMENT POTENTIAL ADD BACK AMOUNT ( Thousands)
Finance
Community
Development Services
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 1
“ Attachment II”
Service Level Reductions
FY 03- 04
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 2
City Attorney
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Allocate a percentage of staff salaries to services for Capital
Improvement Program ( CIP) and Redevelopment, resulting in some
assignments currently performed by the legal administrator being
assigned to the administrative clerk
• Reduce outside legal services by 19%, resulting in extended response
times of requests for legal services; it is unlikely that the part- time legal
services currently being provided on a shared cost basis with a private
law firm can be maintained
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 3
City Clerk
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in professional services account, which includes savings anticipated
from the installation of permanent cameras in Council chambers, resulting in less
video technician hours
• Elimination of half the budget for the printing and distribution of the 2004 Roster
document
• Overtime reduction impacts coverage needed during the election, and places the
department at risk of not being able to accomplish non- mandated activities
• Reduction in casual labor, office expenses, and training and conferences will result
in delays in meeting mandated activities, responding to information requests, and
community proclamations
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 4
City Council
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Mayor’s annual holiday recognition for the boards, committees, and commissions
will be scaled back significantly
• Reduction to Redwood City International ( RCI) will significantly impact services and
programs that RCI can offer to the community and to our sister cities; will limit the
educational, cultural and business exchanges of ideas and information
• Facilitator services reduction will directly impact the City Council’s priority setting
sessions and other study sessions when an outside facilitator has been used. Limited
use of facilitators in setting/ developing priorities will likely mean we cannot use a
facilitator in personnel evaluations
• Significantly limit Council’s ability to support special unexpected projects and
interesting one- time requests by citizen groups
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 5
City Manager
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Allocate a percentage of staff salaries to Capital Improvement Program ( CIP)
• Elimination of casual position will impact all of City Hall as there is no facility staff
in the building, which means other staff will be pulled away from their
responsibilities for building and equipment set up
• Limit the ability of the City Manager to attend certain meetings/ functions where there
are associated costs, which are often with other government agencies and
associations
• Limit the outreach for the neighborhood grants program, possibly not reaching
individuals or communities that could benefit from program
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 6
City Manager ( con’t)
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction to contracts with several community organizations will have a
wide and varied impact on the community, from services to low income
children and conflict resolution services for the community to economic
development programs and the Fourth of July Celebration
Organization Reduction Amt. Original Amt.
Chamber of Commerce $ 11,475 $ 38,250
Joint Venture Silicon Valley $ 7,500 $ 7,500
Peninsula Celebration Assoc. $ 5,000 $ 10,000
Peninsula Conflict Resolution Ctr. $ 6,825 $ 27,300
Peninsula Policy Partnership ( P3) $ 4,000 $ 15,000
Redwood City 2020 $ 3,750 $ 25,000
Redwood City Family Centers $ 10,000 $ 100,000
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 7
Finance
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Selling staff time to another City will result in delayed responses to departments
for information and less review of transactions, resulting in poorer quality
financial information being recorded and published
• Reduction in Payroll workforce will cause delayed responses to payroll
questions, reduced quality control, and reduction in completion of special
projects
• Elimination of the tax ID program will result in no receipt of information on
income tax- paying businesses located in Redwood City that may not be paying
business licenses
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 8
Finance ( con’t)
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Print budget and annual financial reports in- house, limiting number of copies
available and causing a delay in other administrative responsibilities
• IT will limit overtime to emergency situations only, which will cause a delay in
projects and response times
• Reduction in training will result in less innovation, and may impair our ability to
maintain and troubleshoot system problems
• Staff will use older, slower equipment and in the event of a failure we will be
forced to find money elsewhere
• IT is projecting a cost savings with the implementation of the new telephone
system
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 9
Human Resources
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in employee development staff time and program budget, relying on
external sources thus reducing flexibility of location and schedule
• Reduction in recruitment expenditures ( advertisement, testing, and assessment
centers). Recruitments are anticipated to decrease, however, retirements in key
positions are expected, thus budget reductions will impact the type and scope of
recruitment process
• Elimination of two citywide employee events
• Provide Human Resources services to other public entities totaling at least
$ 22,000
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 10
II. B. General Fund
ii. Operating Departments
Expenditure Reductions
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 11
Community Development
Services
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in permanent and casual staffing throughout the department
will mean:
− Structural review of building permit plans will be postponed for two days
− Minor nuisance complaints ( weeds, animals, fences, and signs) not being
processed; removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles will be handled by
PD and will take longer
− Most traffic studies and investigations based on complaints will not be done
unless there is an obvious dangerous situation; neighborhood traffic calming
requests will be limited and may require hiring an outside consultant to
prepare the necessary studies and meet with neighborhood groups ( if funds
are available), otherwise studies will not be done
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 12
Fire
Summary of 4.5% Reductions
− On days when more than three firefighters are off duty, one engine company
will be placed out of service. The truck company will continue to respond
to that engine company’s medical emergencies ( 70% of all emergency
responses). This could occur approximately 60 days during the entire year
− Some delays in responding to some areas of the City, and will cause some
delays in obtaining the total number of firefighters at a fire scene. Neither
of these delays are seen as life threatening at this time
− Assuming other fire departments might take similar action, Redwood City
and other cities will experience a greater usage of automatic aide between
cities
• Reduction of operational staffing and capping overtime will mean:
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 13
Fire ( con’t.)
Summary of 4.5% Reductions
• The vacant half- time plan checker will be eliminated, resulting in longer
turnaround time on plans and reduced time available for actual field
inspections
• Twenty- five percent of requests for outside schooling/ training will be
denied, which will affect company officers’ development classes
• The life span of personal protective equipment will be extended but stay
within the OSHA standards
• Other reductions will be made in areas of conferences, new software
upgrades and associated professional work will be limited to emergencies
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 14
Library
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in permanent and casual staffing throughout the department
will mean:
− Impacts at seven service desks at all three libraries
− Likely reduction of library hours due to illnesses, emergencies, and
vacations
− Longer lines for checking out material
− Longer time to return materials to shelves
− Slower processing and cataloging of new material
− Delay in responding to reference questions
− Reduction of outreach to schools
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 15
Library ( con’t)
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Delaying or not replacing computers and furnishings, and reducing budgets
for supplies, repair, and maintenance, will result in:
− More expensive repairs or replacement
− Less availability of personal computers for public use and teen homework
center
− Overall aesthetics of the library will suffer as replacements of seating and
signage will be postponed or canceled
− Public may be less informed of library events and services
− Will publish fewer library documents, scale back on volunteer recognition
event and library giveaways
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 16
Parks, Recreation and
Community Services
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in permanent and casual staffing throughout the department
will mean:
− Square footage maintained by each building maintenance worker will
increase as will the response time for non- emergency repairs
− Elimination of Summer Make- a- Circus and several other special events and
programs
− Higher youth to staff ratios and minimal evening staffing levels at
department facilities
− The overall aesthetics of City buildings and landscaped areas will be
impacted
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 17
Parks, Recreation and
Community Services ( con’t)
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Both Herkner and Hoover pools will open only during the summer months
• Seven percent less funding available to non- profit agencies and to cultural arts
organizations
• Cultural commission will be less able to provide funding in support of local
arts groups or their own programs
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 18
Police
Summary of 4.5% Reductions
− Vacancies will take significantly longer to fill, due to freezing 3 over- hire
positions
− Reduced levels of services in community policing, traffic or non- emergency
investigation functions, as there will be reassignments to Patrol
− The department will not operate at full staffing as it consistently has in the
past
− The department will only operate at minimum required patrol staffing on all
holidays except for 4th of July, and no additional personnel will work on
holidays
− The department will no longer staff community events if it requires
overtime ( i. e., Public Safety Day, ‘ Tis the Season, Police canine
demonstrations)
• Reduction in staffing throughout the department will mean:
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 19
Police ( cont’d)
Summary of 4.5% Reductions
− There will no longer be middle school resource officers thus eliminating
intervention/ prevention services; Patrol Officers will respond to report of
incidents at the Middle Schools
− Investigations will be less free to respond to all requests, resulting in less
timely investigations and further decrease in availability for patrol officers
and less availability for Community Policing activities
− The School Gang Education ( GREAT) and DARE programs will be
eliminated
− There will be periods of backlogs in the records section and data entry of the
information that is entered into the department’s record management system
− The Citizen’s Academy and the annual report will be eliminated removing a
connection between the department and our citizens
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 20
Public Works Services
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in staffing throughout the department includes:
− Elimination of the central warehouse, which means all city departments must
purchase and stock their own materials and supplies
− Reduction in residential street cleaning from twice per month to once per
month; and from every week to once every other week for some commercial
and industrial districts
− Decrease in the number of trees pruned and delay in responding to pruning
requests, with the result that over time the condition of the urban forest will
decline
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 21
Public Works Services ( con’t) Summary
of 7.0% Reductions
• 10% reduction in street crack sealing, which will also create delays
in temporary sidewalk repairs by two or three days
• Pavement legends and red curb painting reduced by 15%
• Staff will replace missing or illegible street signs only, elimination
of preventative maintenance street sign program, and elimination of
street light pole painting
• Reduce cleaning of the downtown pavers from four to three
cleanings a year, causing the appearance of the pavers to deteriorate
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 22
Summary of
Personnel Reductions
Citywide
Positions 24.04
Overtime Hours 4,700
Casual Labor Hours 25,151
This page left blank intentionally
FIVE- YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS
ix
• Salary and benefit increases are based on current memorandums of understanding and
anticipated costs.
• Property taxes increase 4.0% per year for FY 2004/ 05 and FY 2005/ 06, and 5.0% per year
thereafter.
• Sales taxes increase 3.0% for FY 2004/ 05, 3.5% for FY 2005/ 06, and 5.0% per year thereafter.
• A slow recovery from the recent recession.
• No additional impacts from the State of California beyond those revenue reductions that are
contained in the Governor’s proposed budget ( May release).
• Development fees for all known future projects.
• No general fund support for capital projects other than transfers of utility users’ taxes.
• Increase in retirement costs for non- safety employees beginning in FY 2006/ 07.
x
GENERAL FUND – FIVE YEAR PROJECTION 2004/ 05 THROUGH 2008/ 09 ( in $ 000s)
1998- 99 1999- 2000 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL
$ $ $ $ $
REVENUES
Property Taxes 12,423 13,947 15,404 18,674 18,975
Sales Tax 15,333 18,254 20,842 14,938 15,090
Other Taxes 4,502 5,076 5,221 4,272 4,322
Licenses and Permits 1,669 1,659 2,546 1,107 871
Fines and Forfeitures 266 244 320 441 591
Interest Earnings/ Rentals 1,625 2,231 2,958 2,860 2,021
Revenue from Other Agencies 5,051 6,277 7,625 7,394 7,329
Charges for Services 3,351 3,960 4,466 4,044 4,168
Other Revenues 6,868 4,670 4,696 4,722 5,461
Library 918 1,048 1,004 1,049 1,097
Recreation Revenues 791 1,128 1,119 1,185 1,373
Total Revenues 52,797 58,494 66,201 60,686 61,298
Transfers- In:
Others 345 545 670 731 936
Sandpiper Community Center 131 138 148 156 163
GID 1- 64 Maintenance District 200 200 70 150 64
Total revenues and transfers- in 53,473 59,377 67,089 61,723 62,461
EXPENDITURES
City Council 149 160 176 192 215
City Manager 709 790 837 945 960
City Attorney 398 397 400 504 654
City Clerk 313 353 380 428 465
Human Resources 1,027 1,010 1,071 1,289 1,330
Finance 2,170 2,040 2,406 1,841 2,789
Police 14,665 15,206 16,681 17,260 19,187
Fire 9,423 9,420 9,821 10,319 11,808
Community Development Services 3,574 3,994 4,732 4,818 5,210
Parks & Recreation 7,173 8,096 9,094 10,333 11,240
Library 4,685 4,920 5,293 5,681 6,179
Public Works Services 634 766 1,247 1,206 1,228
Budget Adjustments
Total Expenditures 44,920 47,152 52,138 54,816 61,265
Transfers- Out 8,288 5,924 6,108 14,678 2,069
Total expenditures and transfers- out 53,208 53,076 58,246 69,494 63,334
Net surplus ( deficit) 265 6,301 8,843 - 7,771 - 873
Net surplus ( deficit) as a percentage of
general fund revenues and transfers- in: 0.50% 10.61% 13.18% - 12.59% - 1.40%
Detail of transfers- out:
gas tax operations 237 40 4
gas tax contruction 245 1,133 368 982
traffic safety 830 770 778 1,045 1,087
capital projects 3,582 3,415 4,300 10,775 851
others 3,394 566 658 1,876 131
TOTAL 8,288 5,924 6,108 14,678 2,069
xi
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09
ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
$ $ $ $ $ $
20,257 20,118 20,852 21,895 22,989 24,139
15,170 15,675 16,223 16,872 17,547 18,249
4,797 4,998 5,091 5,295 5,507 5,727
937 1,442 1,117 817 817 1,117
622 706 706 706 706 706
1,266 1,288 1,207 1,170 1,170 1,170
6,283 5,478 5,727 7,427 7,687 7,956
3,649 3,868 3,622 3,587 3,695 3,867
5,257 5,998 6,209 6,426 6,651 6,884
703 551 550 569 589 610
1,543 1,558 1,572 1,627 1,684 1,743
60,485 61,679 62,877 66,392 69,043 72,168
304 244 213 213 213 213
173 182 193 204 215 228
140 150 155 155 155 155
61,102 62,255 63,438 66,964 69,626 72,764
210 204 219 222 226 229
1,010 956 971 1,006 1,042 1,080
707 613 640 663 687 712
526 474 546 524 584 559
1,378 1,225 1,260 1,303 1,347 1,394
3,107 3,171 3,427 3,518 3,612 3,709
20,052 23,470 24,466 25,373 26,314 27,291
12,269 13,814 14,619 15,174 15,750 16,349
4,830 4,678 4,657 4,820 4,989 5,165
11,256 10,387 10,708 11,072 11,449 11,840
5,777 5,147 5,354 5,545 5,743 5,949
1,212 1,136 1,162 1,197 1,233 1,269
1,167 1,214 1,262
62,334 65,275 68,029 71,584 74,190 76,806
1,308 1,092 1,121 1,169 1,225 1,284
63,642 66,367 69,150 72,753 75,415 78,090
- 2,540 - 4,112 - 5,712 - 5,789 - 5,789 - 5,326
- 4.16% - 6.61% - 9.00% - 8.65% - 8.31% - 7.32%
128 2 10 18
1,056 962 985 1,025 1,068 1,112
124 130 136 142 148 153
1,308 1,092 1,121 1,169 1,225 1,284
xii
This page left blank intentionally
Budget Summary OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT 1
Budget Summary - 1
DEPARTMENT
CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED
2004/ 05
2005/ 06
($) ($)
CITY COUNCIL …………………………………………………
.
204,326 218,977
CITY MANAGER ………………………………………………
956,440 971,295
CITY ATTORNEY …………………………………………….…
612,879 639,706
CITY CLERK ……………………………………………………
474,313 545,771
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ………………….
4,779,060 4,763,606
FINANCE …………………………………………………………
7,035,271 7,394,556
FIRE ………………………………………………………………
13,814,364 14,619,484
HUMAN RESOURCES …………………………………………
1,225,102 1,260,739
LIBRARY ……………………………………………………….
5,147,114 5,353,818
PARKS, RECREATION and COMMUNITY SERVICES …….
10,747,121 11,081,852
POLICE …………………………………………………………
23,571,043 24,570,884
PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES……………………………………. 29,386,125 30,843,451
TOTAL 97,953,158 102,264,139
__________________________
( 1) Excludes Debt Service, Capital Projects, Redevelopment Agency, Housing, and Internal Service Funds
Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND – 2004/ 05
Budget Summary - 2
BEGINNING ESTIMATED TRANSFER TOTAL
BALANCE REVENUES IN/( OUT) AVAILABLE
$ $ $ $
GENERAL OPERATING FUNDS
General Fund 14,376,552 59,569,853 ( 4,963,460) 68,982,945
Library Fund 551,100 4,596,014 5,147,114
Recreation Program Fund 1,557,913 ( 330,776) 1,227,137
Sandpiper Park Reserve
Subtotal 14,376,552 61,678,866 ( 698,222) 75,357,196
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Traffic Safety Fund 18,953 270,500 962,458 1,251,911
Special Gas Tax Fund 15,955 1,468,190 ( 32,550) 1,451,595
GID- 64 Maintenance District 713,313 553,860 ( 150,000) 1,117,173
Seaport Centre Maintenance 285,306 281,656 566,962
Seaport Blvd. Landscape Maintenance 63,360 164,491 227,851
Lido Maintenance District 343,211 180,623 523,834
Categorical Grants 1,647,282 1,647,282
Redevelopment Agency 3,561,523 8,211,390 ( 2,227,394) 9,545,519
S. L. E. S. F. Grant 5,964 100,000 105,964
Subtotal 5,007,585 12,877,992 ( 1,447,486) 16,438,091
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
Utility Users Tax 7,140,700 ( 4,816,453) 2,324,247
Gas Tax Construction 346,500 346,500
Transportation Fund 81,206 1,104,831 1,186,037
Capital Projects Fund 5,822,889 233,625 4,268,878 10,325,392
GID Facilities Fees Fund 177,000 150,000 327,000
Water Capital Projects Fund 3,500,000 3,500,000
Sewer Capital Projects Fund 1,035,000 1,035,000
1991 P. F. A. Series - B - Bond Fund 10,000 10,000
Traffic Impact Fees 1,411,916 932,300 2,344,216
Traffic Mitigation Funds 333,789 97,400 431,189
Subtotal 7,836,800 9,658,856 4,333,925 21,829,581
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
General Improvement District 1- 64 1,465,395 2,009,742 3,475,137
Assessment Districts 4,138,595 4,457,965 8,596,560
City Hall Certificates of Participation 11,284,907 338,250 11,623,157
Public Financing Authority 2,162,947 2,467,151 2,227,394 6,857,492
Subtotal 19,051,844 9,273,108 2,227,394 30,552,346
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Parking Fund 724,867 446,982 1,171,849
Water Fund 2,544,218 17,510,340 ( 2,981,946) 17,072,612
Sewer Fund 1,222,467 11,767,362 ( 1,423,165) 11,566,664
Subtotal 4,491,552 29,724,684 ( 4,405,111) 29,811,125
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 50,764,333 123,213,506 10,500 173,988,339
( excluding Internal Service)
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Services Fund 4,794,353 2,613,300 7,407,653
Internal Services Fund 1,786,094 6,653,244 ( 10,500) 8,428,838
Wkrs. Comp. and Emp. Liab. Ins. Fund ( 12,175) 2,345,338 2,333,163
General Liability Insurance Fund ( 6,925) 1,318,817 1,311,892
Subtotal 6,561,347 12,930,699 ( 10,500) 19,481,546
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 57,325,680 136,144,205 193,469,885
( 1) General expenditures are shown net of expenditures that are reimbursed by the Redevelopment Agency
Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND – 2004/ 05
Budget Summary - 3
OPERATIONS CAPITAL TOTAL ENDING
DEBT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDITURE BALANCE
$ $ $ $
58,904,393 ( 1) 58,904,392 10,078,553
5,147,114 5,147,114
1,227,137 1,227,137
182,362
65,278,644 65,278,644 10,260,915
1,232,958 1,232,958 18,953
1,435,640 1,435,640 15,955
428,976 428,976 688,197
62,469 62,469 504,493
144,227 144,227 83,624
229,899 229,899 293,935
1,647,282 1,647,282
5,164,539 2,808,305 7,972,844 1,572,675
100,730 100,730 5,234
10,446,720 2,808,305 13,255,025 3,183,066
2,324,247 2,324,247
346,500 346,500
300,965 850,000 1,150,965 35,072
4,521,500 4,521,500 5,803,892
( 350,291) ( 350,291) 677,291
3,500,000 3,500,000
1,035,000 1,035,000
10,000 10,000
411,000 411,000 1,933,216
431,189
2,625,212 10,323,709 12,948,921 8,880,660
2,009,695 2,009,695 1,465,442
4,258,321 4,258,321 4,338,239
763,250 763,250 10,859,907
4,614,795 4,614,795 2,242,697
11,646,061 11,646,061 18,906,285
433,850 433,850 737,999
15,484,865 15,484,865 1,587,747
10,521,686 10,521,686 1,044,978
26,440,401 26,440,401 3,370,724
116,437,038 13,132,014 129,569,052 44,601,650
2,814,043 2,814,043 4,593,610
6,839,025 6,839,025 1,589,813
2,404,999 2,404,999 ( 71,836)
1,304,041 1,304,041 7,851
13,362,108 13,362,108 6,119,438
129,799,146 13,132,014 142,931,160 50,721,088
Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND – 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 4
BEGINNING ESTIMATED TRANSFER TOTAL
BALANCE REVENUES IN/( OUT) AVAILABLE
$ $ $ $
GENERAL OPERATING FUNDS
General Fund 10,260,915 60,754,473 - 5,196,069 65,819,319
Library Fund 550,100 4,803,718 5,353,818
Recreation Program Fund 1,572,000 - 360,615 1,211,385
Sandpiper Park Reserve
Subtotal 10,260,915 62,876,573 - 752,966 72,384,522
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Traffic Safety Fund 18,953 270,500 984,507 1,273,960
Special Gas Tax Fund 15,955 1,497,730 - 5,093 1,508,592
GID- 64 Maintenance District 688,197 564,542 - 155,000 1,097,739
Seaport Centre Maintenance 504,493 81,775 586,268
Seaport Blvd. Landscape Maintenance 83,624 149,690 233,314
Lido Maintenance District 293,935 186,547 480,482
Categorical Grants 1,600,000 1,600,000
Redevelopment Agency 1,572,675 7,968,693 - 2,088,201 7,453,167
S. L. E. S. F. Grant 5,234 100,000 105,234
Subtotal 3,183,066 12,419,477 ( 1,263,787) 14,338,756
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
Utility Users Tax 7,212,107 - 4,887,436 2,324,671
Gas Tax Construction 511,508 511,508
Transportation Fund 35,072 1,126,930 1,162,002
Capital Projects Fund 5,803,892 202,425 4,178,596 10,184,913
GID Facilities Fees Fund 677,291 100,000 777,291
Water Capital Projects Fund 2,900,000 2,900,000
Sewer Capital Projects Fund 1,085,000 1,085,000
Traffic Impact Fees 1,933,216 313,100 2,246,316
Traffic Mitigation Funds 431,189 81,500 512,689
Subtotal 8,880,660 9,036,062 3,787,668 21,704,390
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
General Improvement District 1- 64 1,465,442 1,994,617 3,460,059
Assessment Districts 4,338,239 4,457,965 8,796,204
City Hall Certificates of Participation 10,859,907 379,725 11,239,632
Public Financing Authority 2,242,697 2,466,612 2,088,201 6,797,510
Subtotal 18,906,285 9,298,919 2,088,201 30,293,405
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Parking Fund 737,999 446,807 1,184,806
Water Fund 1,587,747 17,729,024 - 2,356,043 16,960,728
Sewer Fund 1,044,978 12,366,712 - 1,492,573 11,919,116
Subtotal 3,370,724 30,542,542 ( 3,848,616) 30,064,650
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 44,601,650 124,173,574 10,500 168,785,724
( excluding Internal Service)
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Services Fund 4,593,610 2,633,011 7,226,621
Internal Services Fund 1,589,813 6,963,928 - 10,500 8,543,241
Wkrs. Comp. and Emp. Liab. Ins. Fund ( 71,836) 2,499,223 2,427,387
General Liability Insurance Fund 7,851 1,333,304 1,341,155
Subtotal 6,119,438 13,429,466 - 10,500 19,538,404
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 50,721,088 137,603,039 188,324,127
( 1) General expenditures are shown net of expenditures that are reimbursed by the Redevelopment Agency
Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND – 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 5
OPERATIONS CAPITAL TOTAL ENDING
DEBT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDITURE BALANCE
$ $ $ $
61,466,517 ( 1) 61,466,516 4,352,803
5,353,818 5,353,818
1,211,385 1,211,385
192,757
68,031,720 68,031,720 4,545,560
1,255,007 1,255,007 18,953
1,492,637 1,492,637 15,955
432,658 432,658 665,081
64,742 64,742 521,526
149,648 149,648 83,666
238,487 238,487 241,995
1,600,000 1,600,000
5,261,473 5,261,473 2,191,694
104,471 104,471 763
10,599,123 10,599,123 3,739,633
2,324,671 2,324,671
511,500 511,500 8
306,428 850,000 1,156,428 5,574
4,400,500 4,400,500 5,784,413
100,000 100,000 677,291
2,900,000 2,900,000
1,085,000 1,085,000
290,000 290,000 1,956,316
512,689
2,631,099 10,137,000 12,768,099 8,936,291
1,994,538 1,994,538 1,465,521
4,249,059 4,249,059 4,547,145
824,725 824,725 10,414,907
4,475,133 4,475,133 2,322,377
11,543,455 11,543,455 18,749,950
452,756 452,756 732,050
16,384,069 16,384,069 576,659
11,059,345 11,059,345 859,771
27,896,170 27,896,170 2,168,480
120,701,567 10,137,000 130,838,567 38,139,915
3,016,787 3,016,787 4,209,834
7,069,385 7,069,385 1,473,856
2,558,677 2,558,677 ( 131,290)
1,325,723 1,325,723 15,432
13,970,572 13,970,572 5,567,832
134,672,139 10,137,000 144,809,139 43,707,746
Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND – 2004/ 05
Budget Summary - 6
General Water Sewer Gas Tax Traffic Safety
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
$ $ $ $ $
City Council 204,326
City Manager
Management/ Policy Execution 693,209
Community Promotion 263,231
Total 956,440
City Attorney 612,879
City Clerk 474,313
Community Development Services
Administration 228,809
Building and Inspection 2,041,281
Engineering and Construction 1,231,764
Housing
Planning and Redevelopment 1,176,358
Total 4,678,212
Finance
Revenue Services 1,134,628
Financial Services/ Debt Svc. 922,707
Administrative Support 2,248,781 111,916 53,002
Risk Management
Info. Tech./ Telephone Services
Total 3,171,488 1,246,544 53,002
Fire
Fire Safety 13,814,364
Human Resources
Human Resources 1,225,102
Workers' Compensation
Employment Liability
Total 1,225,102
Library Services 5,147,114
Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.
Human Services 1,145,473
Parks/ Recreation 9,241,997
Building Services
Total 10,387,470
Police
Law Enforcement 23,470,311
Public Works Services
Fleet and MSC Management
Right- of- Way Maintenance 1,019,347 1,127,242 1,232,958
Wastewater Mgmt. Services 117,278 10,468,684 308,398
Water Utility Services 14,238,321
Total 1,136,625 14,238,321 10,468,684 1,435,640 1,232,958
GRAND TOTAL 65,278,644 15,484,865 10,521,686 1,435,640 1,232,958
Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND – 2004/ 05
Budget Summary - 7
Utility Users Other Total Internal
Tax Fund Funds All Funds Service
$ $ $ $
204,326 City Council
City Manager
693,209 Management/ Policy Execution
263,231 Community Promotion
956,440 Total
612,879 City Attorney
474,313 City Clerk
Community Development Services
228,809 Administration
2,041,281 Building and Inspection
100,848 1,332,612 Engineering and Construction
1,647,282 1,647,282 Housing
5,164,539 6,340,897 Planning and Redevelopment
6,912,669 11,590,881 Total
Finance
37,953 1,172,581 Revenue Services
11,672,061 12,594,768 Financial Services/ Debt Svc.
2,324,247 202,037 4,939,983 Administrative Support
1,304,041 Risk Management
2,084,381 Info. Tech./ Telephone Services
2,324,247 11,912,051 18,707,332 3,388,422 Total
Fire
13,814,364 88,771 Fire Safety
Human Resources
1,225,102 Human Resources
2,404,999 Workers' Compensation
Employment Liability
1,225,102 2,404,999 Total
5,147,114 Library Services
Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.
1,145,473 Human Services
359,651 9,601,648 Parks/ Recreation
2,454,548 Building Services
359,651 10,747,121 2,454,548 Total
Police
100,730 23,571,041 2,013,408 Law Enforcement
Public Works Services
3,011,960 Fleet and MSC Management
367,977 3,747,524 Right- of- Way Maintenance
499,020 11,393,380 Wastewater Mgmt. Services
6,900 14,245,221 Water Utility Services
873,897 29,386,125 3,011,960 Total
2,324,247 20,158,998 116,437,038 13,362,108 GRAND TOTAL
Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND – 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 8
General Water Sewer Gas Tax Traffic Safety
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
$ $ $ $ $
City Council 218,977
City Manager
Management/ Policy Execution 725,068
Community Promotion 246,227
Total 971,295
City Attorney 639,706
City Clerk 545,771
Community Development Services
Administration 238,097
Building and Inspection 2,133,358
Engineering and Construction 1,280,925
Housing
Planning and Redevelopment 1,004,915
Total 4,657,295
Finance
Revenue Services 1,205,058
Financial Services/ Debt Svc. 967,656
Administrative Support 2,459,838 133,121 62,369
Risk Management
Info. Tech./ Telephone Services
Total 3,427,494 1,338,179 62,369
Fire
Fire Safety 14,619,484
Human Resources
Human Resources 1,260,739
Workers' Compensation
Employment Liability
Total 1,260,739
Library Services 5,353,818
Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.
Human Services 1,189,769
Parks/ Recreation 9,518,427
Building Services
Total 10,708,196
Police
Law Enforcement 24,466,413
Public Works Services
Fleet and MSC Management
Right- of- Way Maintenance 1,043,690 1,169,341 1,255,007
Wastewater Mgmt. Services 118,842 10,996,976 323,296
Water Utility Services 15,045,890
Total 1,162,532 15,045,890 10,996,976 1,492,637 1,255,007
GRAND TOTAL 68,031,720 16,384,069 11,059,345 1,492,637 1,255,007
Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND – 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 9
Utility Users Other Total Internal
Tax Fund Funds All Funds Service
$ $ $ $
218,977 City Council
City Manager
725,068 Management/ Policy Execution
246,227 Community Promotion
971,295 Total
639,706 City Attorney
545,771 City Clerk
Community Development Services
238,097 Administration
2,133,358 Bldg. Insp./ Code Enforcement
106,311 1,387,236 Engineering and Construction
1,600,000 1,600,000 Housing
5,261,473 6,266,388 Planning and Redevelopment
6,861,473 11,625,079 Total
Finance
39,711 1,244,769 Revenue Services
11,575,955 12,543,611 Financial Services/ Debt Svc.
2,324,671 202,132 5,182,131 Administrative Support
1,325,723 Risk Management
2,163,105 Info. Tech./ Telephone Services
2,324,671 11,817,798 18,970,511 3,488,828 Total
Fire
14,619,484 88,771 Fire Safety
Human Resources
1,260,739 Human Resources
2,558,677 Workers' Compensation
Employment Liability
1,260,739 2,558,677 Total
5,353,818 Library Services
Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.
1,189,769 Human Services
373,656 9,892,083 Parks/ Recreation
2,526,451 Building Services
373,656 11,081,852 2,526,451 Total
Police
104,471 24,570,884 2,086,947 Law Enforcement
Public Works Services
3,220,898 Fleet and MSC Management
378,530 3,846,568 Right- of- Way Maintenance
504,979 11,944,093 Wastewater Mgmt. Services
6,900 15,052,790 Water Utility Services
890,409 30,843,451 3,220,898 Total
2,324,671 20,047,807 120,701,567 13,970,572 GRAND TOTAL
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 10
Transfers- in
0.93%
Sales Tax
25.18%
Interest &
Rents
2.07%
Licenses &
Permits
2.32%
From Other
Agencies
8.80%
Charges for
Services
6.21%
Other Revenue
13.02%
Fines &
Forfeitures
1.13%
Other Taxes
8.03%
Prop. Tax
32.31%
General Fund Revenues 2004/ 05
$ 62.255 million
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 11
General Fund Expenditures 2004/ 05
$ 66.367 million
Others
10.0%
Transfers- out
1.6%
Police
35.4%
Fire
20.8%
Com. Dev.
7.0%
Public Works
1.7%
Parks & Rec.
15.7%
Library
7.8%
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 12
General Fund Revenues 2005/ 06
$ 63.438 million
Transfers- in
Other Revenue 0.9%
13.1%
Prop. Tax
32.9%
Sales Tax
Charges for 25.6%
Services
5.7%
From Other
Agencies
9.0%
Interest & Rents
1.9%
Fines & Foreitures
1.1%
Licenses &
Permits
2.1% Other Taxes
8.0%
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 13
Others
10.2%
Transfers- out
1.6%
Com. Devel.
6.7%
Public Works
1.7%
Parks & Rec.
15.5%
Library
7.7% Police
35.4%
Fire
21.1%
General Fund Expenditures 2005/ 06
$ 69.150 million
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 14
Fixed Assets
0.2%
Employee Costs
68.7%
Supplies &
Services
17.1%
Internal Services
13.7%
General Fund 2004/ 05
Where $ Spent
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 15
General Fund 2005/ 06
Where $ Spent
Fixed Assets
0.2%
Employee Costs
69.3%
Internal Services
13.9%
Supplies &
Services
16.6%
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 16
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
99/ 00 00/ 01 01/ 02 02/ 03 03/ 04 04/ 05
Property Tax Growth
Increases in Assessed Valuation
Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2004/ 05 AND 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 17
2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET
$ $ $ $ $ $
GENERAL FUND
A PROPERTY TAXES
1 Current Year Secured Tax 16,934,827 17,178,975 17,093,025 17,451,199 18,027,587 18,730,090
2 Current Year Unsecured 1,640,962 1,730,202 1,500,577 1,643,536 1,615,000 1,647,000
3 Prior Year Taxes 97,735 65,836 25,000 ( 5,000) 25,000 25,000
4 Teeter Plan/ ERAF Return from County 1,167,205 450,000 450,000
Total Property Taxes 18,673,524 18,975,013 18,618,602 20,256,940 20,117,587 20,852,090
B OTHER TAXES & FEES
1 Sales and Use Tax 14,937,621 15,090,100 14,403,636 15,170,020 15,674,559 16,223,169
2 Franchises Fees 1,227,900 1,094,168 1,195,291 1,187,000 1,197,600 1,209,412
3 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,498,249 1,554,934 1,593,840 1,797,135 2,038,400 2,119,936
4 Property Transfer Tax 502,735 518,016 550,000 600,000 550,000 550,000
5 Business Licenses 1,043,245 1,154,487 1,050,000 1,213,300 1,212,000 1,212,000
Total Other Taxes 19,209,750 19,411,705 18,792,767 19,967,455 20,672,559 21,314,517
C LICENSES AND PERMITS
1 Building Permits 1,044,612 729,748 1,000,000 810,000 1,300,000 1,000,000
2 Other Licenses and Permits 8,812 12,020 5,500 12,000 12,000 12,000
3 Parking Permits 15,000 25,000
4 Fire Permits 53,523 128,854 110,000 100,000 105,000 105,000
Total Licenses and Permits 1,106,947 870,622 1,115,500 937,000 1,442,000 1,117,000
D FINES AND FORFEITURES
1 Parking Fines 430,926 575,393 600,000 600,000 684,000 684,000
2 Administrative Citation Fines 10,558 15,548 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000
Total Fines and Forfeitures 441,484 590,941 622,000 622,000 706,000 706,000
E USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY
1 Interest Income 2,616,042 1,661,765 1,312,675 866,000 857,000 770,500
2 Rents and Concessions 244,217 360,097 268,000 400,000 431,000 436,000
Total Uses of Money and Property 2,860,259 2,021,862 1,580,675 1,266,000 1,288,000 1,206,500
F REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES
1.1 Motor Vehicle In- Lieu Fee 4,212,755 4,350,686 4,584,143 3,673,759 4,447,129 4,625,014
1.2 Enhanced MV Collections 68,365 68,350 68,000 68,000 68,000 68,000
2 Proposition 172 Sales Tax 643,344 604,703 619,140 575,000 592,250 610,018
3 Police Officer Training 51,508 52,908 6,445
4 Police Athletic League 11,231 86,319 27,050
5 Homeowner Property Tax Relief 215,640 204,032 207,000 207,000 208,000 208,000
6 Off Highway License Fee 748 2,027 2,000 2,230 2,200 2,200
7 State- Mandated Program Reimbursement 246,986 442 42
8 Recreation Program Grants 760,638 770,183 660,000 535,000 525,000 525,000
9 State Booking Fee Reimbursements 284,417 284,417 284,417
10 Contribution for Streets 23,000 31,831 31,900 31,900 31,000 31,000
11 Fair Oaks Information and Referral 75,690 60,688 27,917 58,726 58,726 58,726
12 Fair Oaks Center Contribution/ Grants 296,381 321,712 270,881 270,881 270,881 270,881
13 Paramedic Program Contribution 195,818 200,996 200,000 200,996 200,996 200,996
14 Port of Redwood City Contribution 307,739 290,088 389,000 342,000 573,520 627,000
15 State Take- away ( 1,500,000) ( 1,500,000)
Total Revenue from Other Agencies 7,394,260 7,329,382 7,059,981 6,283,446 5,477,702 5,726,835
G CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES
1 Zoning Fees 96,179 62,670 110,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
2 Sale of Maps and Publications 2,088 1,335 5,000 500 500 500
3 Fire Services 351,612 303,275 337,000 295,700 297,100 300,200
4 Fire Inspection Fees 5,362 1,289 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000
5 Police Services 313,642 351,109 316,000 238,000 238,000 238,000
6 Plan Checking Fees 342,383 308,451 300,000 302,300 432,500 330,000
7 Garbage Collection Franchise Fees 1,573,591 1,501,001 1,676,780 1,541,000 1,541,000 1,579,525
8 Engineering and Subdivision Fees 449,659 300,819 360,000 260,000 310,000 310,000
9 Accounting Services 57,633 58,668 61,736 71,736 74,000 62,000
10 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges 2,930 28,504 27,000 30,500 20,500 20,500
11 Senior Advisory Council Reimbursement 175,947 237,954 259,362 150,000 232,000 259,362
12 E. I. R. Fees 523,027 822,146 250,000 375,000 450,000 250,000
13 SBSA Landscape Maintenance Services 68,648 70,353 71,880 71,880 85,309 85,309
14 Shopping Cart Collection Fees 81,797 121,333 90,000 80,000 85,000 85,000
15 Planning Cost Recovery 130,000
Total Charges for Current Services 4,044,498 4,168,907 3,866,258 3,648,616 3,867,909 3,622,396
Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2004/ 05 AND 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 18
2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET
$ $ $ $ $ $
H OTHER REVENUE
1 Sale of Property 6,500
2 Water Fund 1,209,352 1,265,062 1,264,292 1,264,292 1,570,950 1,593,450
3 Sewer Fund 852,671 898,187 920,833 920,833 1,054,457 1,108,887
4 Parking Fund 44,454 43,846 42,703 42,703 36,527 36,527
5 Interdepartmental Operating Transfers 1,680,129 1,925,922 2,011,843 1,860,016 2,198,520 2,288,117
6 Other Revenues 935,608 1,328,527 790,417 1,162,843 1,137,642 1,182,155
Total Other Revenue 4,722,214 5,461,544 5,030,088 5,257,187 5,998,096 6,209,136
I LIBRARY REVENUE
1 Library Grants 740,206 771,460 302,122 350,600 200,000 200,000
2 Fair Oaks Library Contribution 142,456 167,402 167,400 170,000 170,000 170,000
3 Library Services 166,351 157,797 151,281 182,200 181,100 180,100
Total Library Revenue 1,049,013 1,096,659 620,803 702,800 551,100 550,100
J RECREATION REVENUES
1 Recreation Program Fees 1,185,303 1,373,103 1,583,300 1,543,078 1,557,913 1,572,000
Total General Fund Revenues 60,687,252 61,299,738 58,889,974 60,484,522 61,678,866 62,876,573
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
A TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
1 Total Traffic Fines 369,275 306,318 340,000 270,516 270,500 270,500
B GAS TAX OPERATING FUNDS
1 Gas Tax Section 2107 and 2017.5 640,393 638,626 658,920 620,481 626,690 632,960
2 Gas Tax Section 2105 481,181 475,851 490,620 467,211 471,880 476,600
3 Gas Tax Section 2106 379,698 363,648 376,380 351,104 354,620 358,170
4 Gas Tax Interest Income 6,211 4,096
5 Hauling Fees and Miscellaneous 40,035 14,678 15,000 108,000 15,000 30,000
Total Gas Tax Funds 1,547,518 1,496,899 1,540,920 1,546,796 1,468,190 1,497,730
C MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
1 GID 1- 64 542,057 562,402 507,911 542,650 553,860 564,542
2 Seaport Centre 275,562 317,940 271,034 271,034 281,656 81,775
3 Seaport Boulevard 140,965 153,587 157,682 157,682 164,491 149,690
4 Lido Area 170,610 172,109 162,480 174,899 180,623 186,547
Total Maintenance District Funds 1,129,194 1,206,038 1,099,107 1,146,265 1,180,630 982,554
D FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
1 Federal Law Enforcement Grants 149,268 44,937
2 Interest Income 8,954 6,679 1,300
Total Federal Law Enforcement Grants 8,954 155,947 46,237
E CATEGORICAL GRANTS
1 Community Development Block Grant 1,422,000 1,399,000 1,372,873 1,372,873 1,347,282 1,300,000
2 Program Income 78,709 77,044 132,023 132,023 300,000 300,000
3 Other Grants 209,007 208,037
Total Grants 1,709,716 1,684,081 1,504,896 1,504,896 1,647,282 1,600,000
F REDEVELOPMENT HOUSING FUND
1 Property Tax Increment 2,615,900 2,529,494 2,422,285 1,660,080 1,656,800 1,689,936
2 Interest Income 128,955 118,059 71,588 141,946 76,458 11,731
3 Miscellaneous Revenue 62,829 27,975 138,626
Total Redevelopment Housing Fund 2,807,684 2,675,528 2,493,873 1,940,652 1,733,258 1,701,667
G REDEVELOPMENT GENERAL FUND
1 Property Tax Increment 5,315,058 5,148,365 4,185,712 6,056,451 6,052,026 6,173,066
2 Interest Income 204,620 517,554 300,000 607,960 426,106 93,960
3 Other Revenues 43,815,949
Total Redevelopment General Fund 5,519,678 5,665,919 4,485,712 50,480,360 6,478,132 6,267,026
Total All Redevelopment Agency Funds 8,327,362 8,341,447 6,979,585 52,421,012 8,211,390 7,968,693
H S. L. E. S. F. GRANT
1 S. L. E. S. F. Grant 153,398 151,555 150,000 113,683 100,000 100,000
2 Interest Income 14,971 1,484 500
Total S. L. E. S. F Grant 168,369 153,039 150,000 114,183 100,000 100,000
Total Special Revenue Funds 13,260,388 13,343,769 11,614,508 57,049,905 12,877,992 12,419,477
Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2004/ 05 AND 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 19
2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET
$ $ $ $ $ $
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1 Utility Users Tax 6,924,217 7,009,817 7,070,000 7,070,000 7,140,700 7,212,107
2 Other Revenues 62,375 1,991,154 8,083,654
3 Interest Income 606,374 839,854 611,422 375,000 233,625 202,425
Total Capital Projects Fund 7,592,966 9,840,825 7,681,422 15,528,654 7,374,325 7,414,532
B TRANSPORTATION FUND
1 Measure ' A' Funds 1,118,635 1,047,081 1,065,900 1,053,529 1,074,600 1,096,090
2 Interest Income 96,595 58,231 25,000 42,946 30,231 30,840
Total Measure ' A' Funds 1,215,230 1,105,312 1,090,900 1,096,475 1,104,831 1,126,930
C PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION FUND
1 Series - B- Interest Income 3,570 2,132
D GID 1- 64 FACILITIES FEES FUND
1 Facility Fees 2,566,195
2 Interest Income 522,365 599,782 100,000 307,000 150,000 100,000
3 Other Revenues 90,000
Total GID 1- 64 Facilities Fees Fund 3,088,560 689,782 100,000 307,000 150,000 100,000
E CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FUND
1 Transportation Grants 416,157 1,391,898 7,600,000 7,600,000
2 Other Grants 551,465 39,166 1,000,000
Total Transportation Construction Grants Fund 967,622 1,431,064 8,600,000 7,600,000
F TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES FUND
1 Developer Contributions 411,633
2 Interest Income 166,812 155,177 134,800 134,800 97,400 81,500
Total Traffic Mitigation Fees Fund 578,445 155,177 134,800 134,800 97,400 81,500
G TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FUND
1 Traffic Impact Fees 208,551 13,514 55,000 110,000 792,000 219,500
2 Interest Income 294,707 255,288 304,000 161,600 140,300 93,600
Total Traffic Impact Fees Fund 503,258 268,802 359,000 271,600 932,300 313,100
H ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOND PROCEEDS AND INTEREST INCOME
1 Redwood Shores Traffic Improvement 212,095 152,355 5,600,000 7,812,216
2 Pacific Shores Traffic Improvement 350,762 24,787
Total Assessment District Fund 562,857 177,142 5,600,000 7,812,216
Total Capital Project Funds 14,512,508 13,670,236 23,566,122 32,750,745 9,658,856 9,036,062
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
A GID 1- 64 FACILITIES BONDS
1 Assessments 1,362,692 1,394,704 1,390,775 1,390,775 1,354,927 1,344,190
2 Interest Income 6,991 8,273
Total GID 1 - 64 Facilities Fund 1,369,683 1,402,977 1,390,775 1,390,775 1,354,927 1,344,190
B GID 1- 64 RECLAMATION BONDS
1 Assessments 677,546 675,618 670,110 670,110 644,815 640,427
2 Interest Income 13,806 13,124 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total GID 1- 64 Reclamation Fund 691,352 688,742 680,110 680,110 654,815 650,427
C PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
1 Rental Income 1,733,801 2,169,534 2,362,902 1,979,016 2,292,151 2,291,612
2 Interest Income 151,119 149,887 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
Total Public Finance Authority 1,884,920 2,319,421 2,442,902 2,059,016 2,372,151 2,371,612
D 1997 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS
1 Interest Income 95,297 95,667 100,000 95,000 95,000 95,000
E CITY HALL C. O. P. S.
1 Interest Income 52,565 256,640 604,500 234,000 338,250 379,725
Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2004/ 05 AND 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 20
2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET
$ $ $ $ $ $
F SEAPORT CONSOLIDATED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
1 Assessments 1,324,919 1,339,321 1,307,639 1,307,639 1,297,848 1,297,848
2 Interest Income 56,625 53,729 17,697 16,000 16,000
Total Seaport Consolidated Assessment District Fu 1,381,544 1,393,050 1,307,639 1,325,336 1,313,848 1,313,848
G PACIFIC SHORES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
1 Assessments 2,046,502 2,083,397 2,083,397 2,101,222 2,101,222
2 Interest Income 121,871 64,945 25,000 25,000 25,000
Total Pacific Shores Assessment District Fund 121,871 2,111,447 2,083,397 2,108,397 2,126,222 2,126,222
H REDWOOD SHORES TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
1 Assessments 406,585 1,043,028 1,043,028 1,005,895 1,005,895
2 Interest Income 17,407 10,561 12,000 12,000 12,000
Total Pacific Shores Assessment District Fund 17,407 417,146 1,043,028 1,055,028 1,017,895 1,017,895
Total Debt Service Funds 5,614,639 8,685,090 9,652,351 8,947,662 9,273,108 9,298,919
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
A PARKING
1 Property Tax 32,332 25,980 22,700 22,700 23,200 23,700
2 Parking Fees 470,197 457,536 483,963 405,851 405,851 405,851
3 Interest Income 25,588 24,647 22,714 22,261 17,931 17,256
Total Parking Fund 528,117 508,163 529,377 450,812 446,982 446,807
B WATER UTILITY
1 Interest Income 747,242 612,293 129,430 300,811 55,340 24,024
2 Facility Fees 267,446 239,378 260,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
3 Connection Fees 110,130 48,826 60,000 60,000 90,000 90,000
4 Basic Service Charges 4,623,136 4,870,719 5,350,946 4,850,946 5,200,000 5,300,000
5 Water Sales 8,891,209 8,631,103 10,685,812 9,283,825 11,850,000 12,000,000
6 Miscellaneous Revenues 92,035 79,551 62,108 110,000 65,000 65,000
Total Water Utility Fund 14,731,198 14,481,870 16,548,296 14,855,582 17,510,340 17,729,024
C SEWER UTILITY
1 Interest Income 194,754 151,955 26,394 96,224 51,173 45,748
2 Facility Fees 48,049 20,459 25,000 35,000 50,000 75,000
3 Sewer Connection Fees 17,800 10,200 11,500 20,000 30,000 45,000
4 Sewer Service Charges 8,850,588 9,086,598 7,924,000 8,123,600 9,849,719 10,350,773
5 Fair Oaks District 31,367 9,309 1,430,000 1,382,004 1,492,565 1,544,804
6 Emerald Lakes Area 313,847 161,460 320,000 202,000 218,160 225,796
7 Oak Knoll Area 21,171 21,840 44,000 27,600 29,808 30,851
8 Woodside Sewer Service 19,029 20,013 20,613 21,238 22,937 23,740
9 Miscellaneous Revenues 53,488 11,743 16,767 65,000 23,000 25,000
Total Sewer Utility Fund 9,550,093 9,493,577 9,818,274 9,972,666 11,767,362 12,366,712
Total Enterprise Funds 24,809,408 24,483,610 26,895,947 25,279,060 29,724,684 30,542,542
Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2004/ 05 AND 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 21
2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET
$ $ $ $ $ $
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
A EQUIPMENT SEVICES FUND
1 Internal Service Charges 2,342,158 2,865,879 2,491,414 2,491,414 2,430,928 2,460,885
2 Interest Income 268,769 225,563 159,071 160,008 144,212 133,966
3 Miscellaneous 64,932 33,773 38,960 39,885 38,160 38,160
Total Equipment Services Fund 2,675,859 3,125,215 2,689,445 2,691,307 2,613,300 2,633,011
B INTERNAL SERVICES FUND
1 Facility Maintenance Service

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Fox Theater - 1950’ s
Fox Theater - Today
Adopted Budget
2004- 2006
Main & Broadway - San Francisco Earthquake 1906
Main & Broadway - Today
Fire Station on Middlefield Road – 1920- 1987
Main Library on Middlefield Road - Today
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED BUDGET
2004- 2006
CITY COUNCIL
Jeff Ira, Mayor
Barbara Pierce, Vice Mayor
Jim Hartnett, Council Member
Diane Howard, Council Member
Ira Ruskin, Council Member
Ian Bain, Council Member
Rosanne Foust, Council Member
CITY MANAGER
Edward P. Everett
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE and FINANCIAL PLANNING
Brian J. Ponty
COMPILED BY
Alison Freeman, Financial Services Manager
Irv Weinstock, Gloria del Rosario, Kyi Khin, Senior Accountants
Jill Greenhorn, Accountant
Sandy Jennings, Administrative Assistant
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS
City Manager .................................................................................. Edward Everett
Assistant to the City Manager......................................................... Magda Gonzalez
City Attorney .................................................................................. Stan Yamamoto
City Clerk........................................................................................ Patricia Howe
Community Development Services ................................................ Joel Patterson
Finance and Financial Planning ...................................................... Brian Ponty
Fire .................................................................................................. Gerald Kohlmann
Human Resources ........................................................................... Maria Rivera- Peña
Library............................................................................................. David Genesy
Parks, Recreation and Community Services................................... Corinne Centeno
Police .............................................................................................. Carlos Bolanos
Public Works Services .................................................................... Peter Ingram
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADOPTED BUDGET – 2004- 2006
Introduction Page
Budget Message.................................................................................................................... i
City Manager’s Budget Recommendations and
Possible Budget Options for City Council Consideration ............................................ vii
Five Year Financial Projections.......................................................................................... ix
General Fund Five Year Projection - 2004/ 05 through 2005/ 06 ......................................... x
Overview
Budget Summary:
Operating Budget Summary by Department ....................................... Budget Summary - 1
Analysis of Budget by Fund ................................................................ Budget Summary - 2
Budget Summary by Department by Fund .......................................... Budget Summary - 6
General Fund Graphs......................................................................... Budget Summary - 10
Revenue Estimates 2004/ 05 and 2005/ 06.......................................... Budget Summary - 17
Property Tax ...................................................................................... Budget Summary - 22
Utility Users’ Tax .............................................................................. Budget Summary - 23
Sales Tax............................................................................................ Budget Summary - 24
Appropriation Limit........................................................................... Budget Summary - 25
Personnel Allocation by Department................................................. Budget Summary - 26
City Council Priorities ........................................................................ City Council Priorities - 1
Neighborhood Services Survey ............................................... Neighborhood Services Survey - 1
Performance Measures........................................................................ Performance Measures - 1
Operating Programs - Budget by Departments
City Council
Department Overview................................................................................ City Council - 2
Sub- Programs ............................................................................................ City Council - 2
City Manager
Department Summary............................................................................... City Manager - 2
Department Overview............................................................................... City Manager - 3
Objectives ................................................................................................. City Manager - 4
Sub- Programs ........................................................................................... City Manager - 5
City Attorney
Department Overview............................................................................... City Attorney - 2
Sub- Programs ........................................................................................... City Attorney - 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADOPTED BUDGET – 2004- 2006
Operating Programs - Budget by Departments ( Continued)
City Clerk
Department Summary................................................................................... City Clerk - 2
Department Overview................................................................................... City Clerk - 3
Objectives ..................................................................................................... City Clerk - 4
Performance Measures ................................................................................................. City Clerk - 5
Sub- Programs ............................................................................................... City Clerk - 7
Community Development Services
Department Summary........................................................................................... CDS - 2
Department Overview........................................................................................... CDS - 3
Objectives ............................................................................................................. CDS - 4
Performance Measures.......................................................................................... CDS - 7
Sub- Programs ..................................................................................................... CDS - 13
Finance
Department Summary....................................................................................... Finance - 2
Department Overview....................................................................................... Finance - 3
Objectives ......................................................................................................... Finance - 4
Performance Measures...................................................................................... Finance - 5
Sub- Programs ................................................................................................... Finance - 8
Fire
Department Summary............................................................................................ Fire - 2
Department Overview............................................................................................ Fire - 3
Objectives .............................................................................................................. Fire - 4
Performance Measures........................................................................................... Fire - 6
Sub- Programs ...................................................................................................... Fire - 10
Human Resources
Department Summary......................................................................... Human Resources - 2
Department Overview......................................................................... Human Resources - 3
Objectives ........................................................................................... Human Resources - 4
Performance Measures........................................................................ Human Resources - 5
Sub- Programs ..................................................................................... Human Resources - 9
Library
Department Summary....................................................................................... Library - 2
Department Overview....................................................................................... Library - 3
Objectives ......................................................................................................... Library - 4
Performance Measures...................................................................................... Library - 6
Sub- Programs .................................................................................................. Library - 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADOPTED BUDGET – 2004- 2006
Operating Programs - Budget by Departments ( Continued)
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department Summary......................................................................................... PRCS - 2
Department Overview......................................................................................... PRCS - 3
Objectives ........................................................................................................... PRCS - 4
Performance Measures........................................................................................ PRCS - 6
Sub- Programs ................................................................................................... PRCS - 10
Police
Department Summary......................................................................................... Police - 2
Department Overview......................................................................................... Police - 3
Objectives ........................................................................................................... Police - 4
Performance Measures........................................................................................ Police - 6
Sub- Programs ................................................................................................... Police - 11
Public Works Services
Department Summary.......................................................................................... PWS - 2
Department Overview.......................................................................................... PWS - 3
Objectives ............................................................................................................ PWS - 4
Performance Measures......................................................................................... PWS - 6
Sub- Programs ...................................................................................................... PWS - 8
General Budget Information
Explanation of Budget Process............................................. General Budget Information - 2
Fund Descriptions................................................................. General Budget Information - 2
Fixed Assets Detail by Department ...................................... General Budget Information - 6
Schedule of Interfund Transfers ........................................... General Budget Information - 8
Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Improvements by Funding Source ............................................................ CIP - 2
This page left blank intentionally
Office of the City Manager 1017 Middlefield Road
Edward P. Everett P. O. Box 391
City Manager Redwood City, CA 94064
www. redwoodcity. org
Phone ( 650) 780- 7300
TDD ( 650) 780- 7208
Fax ( 650) 780- 7225
i
City of
Redwood City’s
values
June 3, 2004
Honorable Mayor Ira and Members of the City Council:
INTRODUCTION AND ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
Declines in sales tax revenues from structural and economic causes, an extended downturn in the local
economy, a continuation of State raids on local treasuries, and increasing employee benefit costs have
collectively put Redwood City in the midst of its most challenging financial times.
While the proposed budget reflects substantial reductions in expenditures and service level reductions, it still
leaves us with a $ 4.1 million operating deficit ( projected annual expenditures exceeding annual projected
revenues) for FY 2004/ 05 and a forecasted operating deficit of $ 5.7 million for FY 2005/ 06. The
recommended FY 2004/ 05 budget is the third successive budget in which departments have been asked to make
expenditure reductions. FY 2004/ 05 will also be the third successive year in which the City is spending more
out of its general fund than the revenues it receives in this fund.
The Council’s fiscal forecast in earlier years have enabled the City to accumulate significant reserves upon
which the City is relying very heavily. Caution should be exercised as these reserves are now being consumed.
Without significant corrective action in balancing expenditures with revenue, our reserves will be dangerously
reduced in the years ahead.
We do not see the current circumstance as one from which we will quickly grow our way out. The local
economy is showing little signs of expansion as evidenced by the job growth and commercial real estate
vacancies. San Mateo County employment reached a peak in November 2000 at 401,600 jobs and a low point
of 348,300 jobs in May 2003. As of April 2004, the most recent data available showed an estimated 349,600
jobs in the County. Santa Clara County, an area to which our economic fortunes are closely linked, reached its
peak of 1,006,500 jobs in December 2000 and the trough with 812,900 jobs in January 2004. As of April 2004,
813,600 jobs were reported in Santa Clara County.
Earlier this year the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG) reported that between 2000 and 2003, the
nine county bay area region lost over 268,600 jobs. ABAG forecasts a very modest increase of 16,770 jobs in
2004 and 32,890 jobs in 2005.
According to a report released by BT Commercial Real Estate, as of March 2004 the Redwood City, including
Redwood Shores, commercial office real estate markets had 3.1 million square feet of vacant office space for a
vacancy factor of 31.5%. Moreover, Redwood City was continuing to experience an increase in office
vacancies though the first quarter of this year. Countywide the vacancy rate in San Mateo County was 26.6%,
down slightly from the December 2003 rate of 27.9%.
Clearly, the foregoing data paints a picture that shows the local economy, which at its best, is scraping along
the bottom. When and how strong the next expansion will be are very significant unknowns at this time.
GENERAL FUND
Revenues
General fund revenues ( including transfers into the general fund) are expected to increase modestly to $ 62.3
million ( or 1.9%) in FY 2004/ 05 from $ 61.1 million in FY 2003/ 04. In FY 2005/ 06, revenues are expected to
increase 1.8% to $ 63.4 million.
Excellence:
Passion
to do our
Best in Each
Moment
Build a Great
Community
Together
ii
The major assumptions behind these revenue estimates are:
• No additional cuts from the State other than the $ 1.5 million that is included in the Governor’s proposed
( May 2004) budget. Our preliminary understanding is that the source of these reductions will be from
sales tax, vehicle license fees, and property tax. The exact amount by which each of these revenues will be
reduced is unknown at this time. Accordingly, we have not adjusted our revenue estimates for these items
but have included a -$ 1.5 million revenue item labeled “ State Takeaway” in our revenue projections to
reflect the effect of this reduction. Please see the section titled “ State Impact” for more discussion on this
subject.
• Sales tax will recover modestly ( 3% increase in FY 2004/ 05 and 3.5% in FY 2005/ 06) and that there is no
further erosion in our business- to- business sales tax revenues.
• Property tax revenues will increase about 4% in FY 2004/ 05 and 4% in FY 2005/ 06 as the result of
continued strength in the residential real estate market and that there is no further significant erosion in the
assessed valuations of commercial properties.
Barring intervention by the courts, the State will be implementing the “ triple flip” provision of Proposition 57
( the initiative approved by the voters that enabled the State to issue its “ Economic Recovery Bonds” to pay off
the bills from its spending binge), which was approved by the voters in March of this year. For cities this
means that the State will take 25% of our sales tax revenue and replace it dollar- for- dollar with property tax
revenue. This will not reduce our revenues, but will likely cause cash flow delays depending on how the final
mechanics of this swap operate. Also, we are trusting that the State will honor its promise to make this swap
revenue neutral. Trusting a political entity that has in recent history viewed local governments as ATMs is
risky.
One bright spot in our revenues has been the recent growth in the City’s transient occupancy tax ( TOT) or hotel
tax. Due to the voter- approved tax rate increase from 8% to 10% in November 2003 and improved
performance in the local hotel industry, we are forecasting an increase in TOT revenue of $ 241,000 ( or 13%) to
$ 2 million in FY 2004/ 05 over FY 2003/ 04.
Sales tax revenue continues to drag along the bottom with only modest increases expected in the next fiscal
year. We believe this is reflective of a stagnant local economy. Although not factored into this budget, we
remain very concerned about future losses of sales tax revenue due to the electronic delivery of software by
local businesses engaged in software sales. Should a significant sales tax decline become evident in FY
2004/ 05 or FY 2005/ 06, staff will advise Council and provide options for dealing with this.
The following graph illustrates the performance of locally generated sales tax revenues ( which accounts for
about 95% of our total sales tax revenues) for the past 16 quarters. The key story here is the decline of
“ business- to- business” sales tax revenues. While a portion of this decline is due to the recession in the local
economy, a substantial component of this decline is the electronic delivery of software and other businesses
leaving the area or going out of business.
City of Redwood City
Sales Tax by Economic Category
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
1Q00 2Q00 3Q00 4Q00 1Q01 2Q01 3Q01 4Q01 1Q02 2Q02 3Q02 4Q02 1Q03 2Q03 3Q03 4Q03
Business- to- Business Transportation General Retail Food Products Construction Miscellaneous
Build a Great
Community
Together
Integrity:
Do the Right
Thing,
Not the Easy
Thing
iii
Expenditures
Despite $ 5.1 million in recommended expenditure reductions, expenditures ( including transfers to other funds)
are still expected to increase 4.4% from $ 63.6 million in FY 2003/ 04 to $ 66.4 million in FY 2004/ 05 and 4.0%
to $ 69.1 million in FY 2005/ 06. Offsetting these reductions were higher costs of over $ 1.1 million in
expenditures related to the City’s workers’ compensation insurance program. Higher employee benefit costs
are the key drivers here. Contributions to the California Public Employees Retirement System are up due to
investment losses and improved retirement benefits to police and fire. Although the recommended budget calls
for $ 5.1 million in expenditure reductions from the general fund’s base budget, the net reduction from the base
budget is $ 3.9 million.
Although there have been recent reforms to the State laws that govern the workers’ compensation system, we
are uncertain as to any savings that the City will realize in the next two fiscal years. It is worth noting that
these reforms did not extend to the presumptive injuries and illnesses for public safety employees which will
likely continue to be a significant general fund expense.
Another expenditure that is rapidly growing is the cost of providing health insurance for employees and
retirees. In FY 2004/ 05, we foresee spending about $ 4.3 million ( or 6.6% of general fund expenditures) on
health benefits and $ 4.9 million ( or 7.2% of general fund expenditures) in FY 2005/ 06. Controlling these costs
will require the organization to consider alternatives to the CalPERS health insurance system.
Given the breadth and depth of the recommended expenditure reductions, a separate section of the budget
document has been prepared which deals exclusively with staff’s recommended budget reductions. This
section appears immediately after this letter.
Transfers
Included are the " normal" transfers from the general fund to the traffic safety fund ($ 962,000), and the water
fund ($ 130,000) in FY 2004/ 05 with similar amounts in FY 2005/ 06.
State Impact
The Governor’s proposed budget reflects his agreement with the League of California Cities to support a
constitutional amendment that he will urge the legislature to place on the November 2004 ballot and will cause
the City to lose $ 1.5 million each year in FY 2004/ 05 and FY 2005/ 06. In FY 2006/ 07, these funds will no
longer be taken by the State so accordingly we should expect our revenues to increase by $ 1.5 million in FY
2006/ 07.
Based on the budget the Governor proposed in January 2004, staff had estimated that the City would lose about
$ 1 million in FY 2004/ 05 and in all following years.
The Governor’s proposal has been factored into our budget. Several conditions must, however, be met before
the Governor’s proposal becomes a reality: 1) This proposal must be approved by the legislature and the
constitutional amendment placed on the November 2004 ballot, and 2) the proposed constitutional amendment
must then be approved by the voters in November.
To further complicate and confuse the question of how much money the City will lose to the State is that the
League’s sponsored LOCAL ( Leave Our Community Assets Local) initiative has qualified and will appear on
the November 2004 ballot. This ballot measure offers similar long- term revenue protections to local
government but goes into effect sooner and does not provide for local governments to lose any revenue to the
State in FY 2004/ 05 and FY 2005/ 06.
The bottom line is that we will not have a clear understanding until after the November 2004 election as to how
much of our revenue we will lose to the State in FY 2004/ 05.
General Fund Reserves
Since FY 2002/ 03, revenues have not kept pace with expenditures. The result has been the consumption of
$ 3.4 million in reserves through June 30, 2004.
We anticipate having $ 14.4 million in reserves as of June 30, 2004. Given the projected operating deficits in
each of the next two fiscal years and absent any further changes, the general fund will have $ 4.5 million in
reserves ( 7.2% of expected FY 2005/ 06 revenues) on June 30, 2006, which is the end of the upcoming two- year
budget cycle. This is well below the minimum 15% level called for in the Council’s policy on general fund
reserves and definitely below the comfort level of the City Manager and Finance Director.
Service:
We Care and
It Makes a
Difference
Build a Great
Community
Together
iv
Future Years
As you will see from the Five Year Projection, based on the best information currently available we foresee
deficits in FY 2006/ 07 through FY 2008/ 09. Given the magnitude of the anticipated deficits, it is reasonably
safe to say that absent a bushel full of positive financial news, budget cutting and service reductions will be an
ongoing process for Redwood City.
CAPITAL PROJECTS
With the economic downturn and the anticipated shortfall in Measure A revenues, the proposed Capital
Improvement Program ( CIP) for the next two years has been trimmed in some ongoing replacement programs
and the Roadway Management Program. However, the CIP continues to emphasize the upgrade of essential
infrastructure such as roofs, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, carpet, painting, sidewalk, storm
drainage, lagoon dredging, and technology.
For the FY 2004/ 2005 and FY 2005/ 2006 CIP, the proposed budget for the capital project fund, gas tax
construction fund, transportation fund, grants and fees fund, water improvement fund, sewer improvement fund,
General Improvement District 1- 64, and the Redevelopment Agency totals $ 13,132,014 and $ 10,137,000,
respectively.
Seven ( 7) multi- million dollar projects and programs are already in progress and will take multi- year efforts for
design and construction. They are:
1. Recycled Water Program
2. Downtown Courthouse Plaza
3. Ralston Avenue/ Route 101 Interchange
4. Friendly Acres/ Bayfront Canal Flood Control ( Phase IV & V)
5. Redwood Shores Library
6. Water Conservation Program
7. Downtown Parking Garage
In summary, with the continuation of all existing ongoing programs, the focus of the next two fiscal years’ CIP
will be on the following:
1. Redwood Shores Lagoon Dredging
2. Playfields Replacement
3. Water System Seismic and Security System Improvement
4. Storm Drainage Collection System Upgrade
5. Sidewalk Replacement Program
6. Roadway Management Program
7. Water/ Sewer Main Replacement Program
8. Geographic Information System ( GIS)
9. Street Light Installation Program
10. Redwood Shores Sewer Pump Station Renovation
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ( RDA)
The implementation of Council/ Agency priorities for downtown took major steps forward in FY 2003/ 04 with
the adoption of an almost $ 37 million multi- year funding plan and the issuance of tax increment bonds by the
Agency in October 2003. The proceeds of this bond issue, plus a loan from the City to the Agency, provide
the majority of the funding needed to complete a series of projects that address the Council/ Agency priorities
and actions related to downtown revitalization.
The work program and goals for FY 2003/ 04 continued the progress made in FY 2002/ 03. They included
activities related to public parking facilities to support downtown business and the retail/ cinema project,
planning and design work for the courthouse façade restoration and plaza projects, as well as streetscape
improvements, and implementation planning for the downtown area plan, such as directional signage and
gateway improvements, the downtown precise plan, a downtown parking management strategy, and planning
for special events and activities to mitigate construction impacts.
Build a Great
Community
Together
Creativity:
Freedom to
Imagine and
Courage to
Act
v
The proposed budget for FY 2004/ 05 basically continues the implementation of this multi- year funding plan.
Additional funding for the streetscape project ( primarily “ Theater Way”) is recommended, as well as an
operational budget to provide the administrative support and leadership necessary to see the projects completed.
In terms of affordable housing, the budget proposal increases funding for the El Camino/ Vera Street affordable
housing project in response to the proposal received from First Community Housing and Peninsula Habitat for
Humanity. Negotiations are underway for the transaction. Funding for unidentified affordable housing
projects is also included in the recommended budget.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water Fund
The water enterprise fund is in sound fiscal condition, with a $ 2 million emergency reserve at the beginning of
the fiscal year. Over $ 7 million of previously unappropriated fund balance has been budgeted to date for
additional future water supply ( including implementation of the recycled water project) in the water fund
capital improvement program. Most of the expenditures to date ( approximately $ 2 million) are reimbursable to
the fund via the subsequent sale of revenue bonds. The City Council will consider a financing plan for the $ 43
million recycled water project in the summer of 2004, and then make a series of policy decisions that would
ultimately restore the fund balance to an estimated $ 8 million.
On July 14, 2003, the City Council approved a resolution increasing the " lifeline" water rate from $ 0.88 to
$ 1.10 per unit, continuing the established practice of setting the Redwood City " lifeline" rate at the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission ( SFPUC) wholesale rate. The Council also approved a 3.5% increase to
the monthly basic service charge that provides the financial support for the operations and maintenance of the
City's water system from $ 10.80 to $ 11.17, driven primarily by increases in salaries and benefits. In order to
fund the first year of the new, multi- year “ active” water conservation program including a major toilet
replacement and rebate program, the Council also increased all water conservation usage rates for all customer
classes in order to raise $ 1.4 million in additional revenues to pay for the new conservation measures.
Sewer Fund
The sewer enterprise fund remains in sound fiscal condition, with a $ 1 million emergency reserve.
On July 14, 2003, the City Council approved an increase in the sewer service charge from $ 20.35 to $ 21.45.
The 5.4% increase was driven primarily by increases in salaries and benefits and a projected increase of 3.2%
for sewage treatment services provided by South Bayside System Authority.
APPROPRIATIONS LIMITS
Article XIIIB of the California Constitution defines and establishes the City’s appropriations limit. No city in
California may spend from its “ proceeds of taxes” more than the amount of its “ appropriations limit." The
appropriations limit is determined by a formula contained within Article XIIIB. Redwood City’s
appropriations limit for FY 2004/ 05 is estimated to be $ 202,894,813. The FY 2004/ 05 appropriations subject
to limitations are $ 51,418,325. We are well within our legal limit.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document reflects the toils and deliberations of many throughout the organization, especially the executive
team. I want to thank the budget committee of Magda Gonzalez, Assistant to the City Manager, Corinne
Centeno, Assistant City Manager, and Brian Ponty, Finance Director for their strategic thinking and thorough
reviews of the departmental budget requests. Laura Snidemen is to be commended for her efforts in organizing
and managing the performance measurement and benchmarking elements of this process.
My sincere appreciation and thank you to the very talented Finance Department team: Alison Freeman,
Financial Services Manager; Senior Accountants, Irv Weinstock, Gloria del Rosario, and Kyi Khin; Jill
Greenhorn, Accountant; Senior I. T. Analyst Debbie Matsuura; and Supervisor of Software Development
Services Faith Marte- Kroeger. Their relentless " number crunching," analysis, and attention to details has made
this budget document possible. My compliments to Sandy Jennings, Administrative Assistant to the Finance
Director, for her patience, talents, and long hours to publish the document you have before you.
Build a Great
Community
Together
viii
The departments did a brilliant job in thinking through the proposed cuts. No department did an “ across the board” cut ( i. e. cutting
every division by 15%). All cuts being proposed are based on the following Council criteria:
1. Having the least impact on services to citizens
2. Council’s listed priorities
3. Trying to prevent, if possible, lay- offs
4. Paying attention to collaborating between departments and with outside agencies wherever possible
Redwood City government is getting smaller, and consequently we are reducing the services to our community. A summary of
service level reductions that Council made FY 2003/ 04 are included in Attachment II. The table below provides the perspective of
how our workforce has been reduced since July 2001. Total full time equivalent positions in the general fund and related funds:
• FY 2001/ 02 489 FTEs
• FY 2002/ 03 496 FTEs
• FY 2003/ 04 485 FTEs
• FY 2004/ 05 444 FTEs
Even with the reduction in FTEs listed above, Redwood City is facing an estimated deficit of $ 5.7 million in FY 2005/ 06, based on
the City Manager’s Recommended Budget.
This year, the City Manager’s Recommended Budget causes the layoff of three ( 3) people, cuts back one person to half- time, and
reduces hours of several people by approximately 25%. We met Council’s desires regarding layoffs as most of the positions were
reduced by using: A) existing vacancies, B) retirements, C) separation incentive program, D) voluntary time off ( VTO), E) cutting
contract positions, and F) cutting casual hours.
Attachment I ( following the charts) is a summary presentation for each department. The format, with four sections, is the same for
each department. The first section will summarize the 4% or 15% reductions, what the City Manager “ accepted,” and what was
“ added back” to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget. This section explains the departments’ proposed cuts. The second
section explains the City Manager’s Recommended Budget and what it entails. The third section contains options for further
reductions to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget. The fourth section contains options for “ add- backs” to the City
Manager’s Recommended Budget. All of these figures are rounded to the nearest thousand for simplicity. Pending Council action,
actual precise figures will be entered into the budget.
The staff has done its best to portray an enormous amount of data in a manner that is helpful and useful to Council, and hopefully
provides you with a clear picture without being mired in too much detail. We have tried to clearly provide the Council with
options and alternatives to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget. Staff respects and understands the tough choices that the
Council will have to make. I encourage you to call any of the department heads, or anyone on the budget committee ( Brian,
Corinne, Magda, or myself) and we will respond to your questions. We wish you well in your decision making and stand ready to
fully support your decisions.
AI- 1
“ Attachment I”
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Council
City Manager
Finance
Human Resources
Community Development Services
Fire
Library
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Police
Public Works Services
AI- 2
City Attorney
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 108K
City Manager accepted 15% = $ 108K
City Manager added back = $ 0
Department Proposed Reductions
Stan was able to achieve their 15% reduction in the general fund by charging some of the City Attorney’s time to the
Redevelopment Agency budget and some of the Assistant City Attorney’s time to the CIP budget. Both of these are appropriate
charges as they reflect actual time which both positions are spending in these programs. The legal administrator position is taking
voluntary time off ( VTO) of 20%. The budget for contracting with outside attorneys has been cut based on the last two years’
actual experience. If Redwood City were to need additional outside legal services for matters such as legal transactions or
litigations, then the Council would need to augment this line item.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager recommends that the entire 15% or $ 108K be cut for the department’s budget.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager is not proposing any options for additional cuts to this budget.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager is not proposing any optional add backs to the recommended budget.
AI- 3
City Clerk
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 72K
City Manager accepted 5% = $ 24K
City Manager added back = $ 48K
Department Proposed Reductions
To achieve the 15% reduction, Patricia eliminated an administrative secretary position completely. This in effect cuts the staff by
30% and could cause significant delays and loss of service to Council and to the public. ( i. e., no front counter or 100% telephone
coverage; delay in responding to citizen requests, disruption of City’s record retention program.)
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager is recommending a reduction of $ 24K which is a combination of reclassifying the administrative secretary
position to a secretary and reducing legal advertising to the basic legal minimum required as well as cuts to supplies and services.
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget keeps the full- time secretary position.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wants to make the additional cuts you would have to eliminate the full- time secretary position. This would require
the City Clerk’s office to do only a few basic functions: Council agenda, minutes, and legal advertising, and transfer to other
departments ( who are also being cut) certain functions the City Clerk is now doing ( i. e., management of Citywide records retention
system or overseeing the audio/ visual presentations at Council meetings); or eliminate these functions. Time available to handle
City Council, Department Head or citizen request would be very minimal.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager is not proposing any optional add backs to the recommended budget.
AI- 4
City Council
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 28K
City Manager accepted 13% = $ 24K
City Manager added back = $ 4K
Department Proposed Reductions
Short of cutting “ employees” ( Council members) from seven to five, which I didn’t think would be good for my own career status,
there was not much to cut. All cuts came from supplies and services. The City will no longer reimburse Council members to
attend League of California Cities or other very important conferences and seminars. The City’s contribution to Redwood City
International was eliminated.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget keeps $ 2K for a significantly downsized recognition event for members of your
Boards, Committees and Commissions, and $ 2K for some professional facilitation services ( i. e., recycled water task force or other
type of activities).
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wants to make further cuts, the City Manager would recommend that they remove the $ 4K stated above in the
recommended budget. The impact is pretty clear there will be no recognition event for Boards, Committees and Commissions, and
no ability to provide professional facilitation for any Citywide issues, such as that provided for the recycled water task force.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could restore conferences and travel reimbursement ($ 6K) or contributions to Redwood City International
approximately ($ 4K).
AI- 5
City Manager’s Department
Department’s 15% reduction: $ 158K
City Manager accepted 10% = $ 106K
City Manager added back = $ 53K
Department Proposed Reductions
In order to achieve this level of reduction, the department will make the following cuts:
􀂏 .50 FTE Management Analyst cut to .15 FTE
􀂏 FTE Public Communication Manager ( PCM) cut to .80 FTE ( selling 20% of Public Communication Manager’s time to
Public Works Services department to assist in public information for water conservation efforts)
􀂏 Reduction of data management hours by 15%
􀂏 Reduction in casual hours by 33%
Temporarily suspend the following contracts:
􀂏 Chamber of Commerce – ($ 27K)
􀂏 Peninsula Policy Partnership ( P3) – ($ 11K)
􀂏 Peninsula Celebration Association ( PCA) – ($ 5K)
Contracts Reduction:
􀂏 Redwood City Family Centers – $ 13.5K
􀂏 Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center ( PCRC) – $ 11.5K
􀂏 Redwood City 2020 ( RC2020) – $ 3.3K
􀂏 Citizen Survey – $ 3.3K
􀂏 Chamber Leadership – .5K
We will also:
􀂏 Significantly reduce the conference budget
􀂏 Eliminate the Mayor’s Beautification Awards
􀂏 Reduce the Pride and Beautification Committee budget
􀂏 Eliminate funding for consultants for department head retreats
The reduction for the Management Analyst from .50 to .15 means barely keeping ICMA performance measures alive ( which it still
may not do). The reduction of the Public Communication Manager’s time will mean less time for general community and media
outreach, and legislative activities, less time available for community programs, such as PACT and Community Builders, and
fewer special media/ community outreach projects for all City departments.
It is tough to suspend or reduce the community contracts, but unfortunately much of this budget is all about tough choices. The
Chamber of Commerce has been able to expand membership the last few years and has ended up with reserves so we believe they
can handle a suspension for a couple of years. Peninsula Policy Partnership ( P3) as you all know is a countywide group, but I
believe there are other county groups that are working on similar issues.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget adds back the Management Analyst position up to a .30 FTE level ($ 16K) as this will
assure that we do not lose the performance measurement effort, and provide analysis and full utilization of the neighborhood
survey. This person can also assist in monitoring legislative bills since the Public Communications Manager will have less time to
do so. I recommend adding back the Public Communications Manager to a funding level of .85 FTE ($ 6K). Finally, I added back
casual hours ($ 9.6), so we can provide minimal clerical support to the Public Communications Manager and the Management
Analyst. Redwood City has one of the smallest, if not the smallest City Manager staff on the Peninsula.
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget adds back small amounts totaling ($ 18K) to several community contracts, including
PCRC, RC 2020, and Redwood City Family Centers, and additional money ($ 2K) for consultant and miscellaneous services.
I am also recommending that half of the Chambers contract be reinstated in the Redevelopment budget and that the Chamber focus
its efforts in the Redevelopment/ downtown area.
AI- 6
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wants to make additional cuts, it could eliminate the .30 FTE Management Analyst position completely ($ 33K). We
would then drop out the ICMA Performance Measure Program. Council can also cut Redwood City Family Centers by an
additional ($ 9K). This program is jointly funded by the Redwood City School District, San Mateo County, and the Sequoia High
School District, and a cut here would likely cause the others to follow suit and make the impact three times greater than our
individual cut. Council may also elect to eliminate the PCRC contract ($ 13K).
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could add back more money to the Management Analyst position to bring it back to a half- time position ($ 22K). The
Council could add back all or some of the community contracts: Chamber of Commerce ($ 13.5K), Peninsula Policy Partnership
( P3) ($ 11K), Peninsula Celebration Association ($ 5K), Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center ($ 7.7K), Redwood City Family
Centers ($ 4.5K).
AI- 7
Finance Department
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 139K
City Manager accepted 11.5% = $ 107K
City Manager added back = $ 32K
Department Proposed Reductions
The Financial Services Division is the section of the Finance Department that we are addressing here, because it’s in the general
fund. Brian proposed cutting one account clerk position by 33% ( accounts payable function), one account clerk position by 17%
( payroll benefits function), and one account technician position by 15% ( general accounting bank reconciliation). The department
also eliminated all casual hours and almost all of the overtime hours. They also shifted 25% of the senior accountant to the Capital
Improvement Plan ( CIP), where that accountant is presently spending his time to track CIP costs and to meet numerous grant
requirements. These cuts will affect the accounts payable, payroll benefits, and the general bank reconciliation. Brian believes
with these cuts the department can still meet minimal financial checking and auditing requirements.
Service level impacts are: 1) eliminate employee drop- ins regarding payroll questions and requests, 2) eliminate our ability to “ cost
out” a long list of union proposals during negotiations with the City’s five unions, 3) eliminate the processing of “ special checks”
to speed payment to small businesses and vendors, 4) eliminate the review of accounts payable items submitted by departments,
and 5) eliminate the weekly check listing report to Council, converting this to an electronic report.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget is the following: return the accounts payable account clerk return to full- time ($ 22K).
The City needs to provide more than a “ cursory review” of account payable items. I am also recommending adding back
approximately $ 10K in overtime, to provide sufficient flexibility to deal with staff absences and still meet numerous mandated
financial deadlines.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could eliminate the two items discussed above that I have “ added back” to the budget.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could add back the 17% account clerk position ( payroll benefits function at $ 11K) and/ or the casual hours ($ 4K).
AI- 8
Human Resources
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 212K
City Manager accepted 15% = $ 212K
City Manager added back = $ 0K
Department Proposed Reductions
Maria eliminated two human resources technician positions to reach her 15% goal. This will lead to one lay off. Recruitments
have been reduced during these economic times. Human Resources will focus existing resources on managing the ever- expanding
and very expensive workers compensation program.
The department will eliminate the annual benefit statement and several classroom trainings. They will cut back on the service
awards program for employees, employee giving program, and background checks.
The department is working with IT to rely more on technology and remove some of their paperwork load.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget does not add anything back to this department and accepts all the proposed cuts.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
There are no options presented for additional cuts to this budget.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The highest priority for the department will be to add back one administrative clerk ($ 68K). The department will lose two human
resources technicians, and has already reduced their casual clerical support hours; hence, with some reorganization and increased
use of technology, the most important asset to the department would be to provide clerical support to the professionals. This
would ensure the remaining professional staff’s efficiency.
AI- 9
Community Development Services
Department’s 16.7% reduction = $ 777K
City Manager accepted 15.5% = $ 724K
City Manager added back = $ 53K
Department Proposed Reductions
The department cut 16.7% vs. the required 15%. In order to achieve their reductions, the department made the following cuts:
􀂏 They reorganized the clerical function and eliminated several positions ($ 110K)
􀂏 They moved one position to redevelopment and eliminated a planning position ($ 150K)
􀂏 They shifted some engineering positions to recycled water, CIP project ($ 250K)
􀂏 They significantly reduced code enforcement efforts ($ 173K)
􀂏 Other miscellaneous reductions ($ 94K)
What are the service level impacts of the above cuts? The department has already reorganized the clerical function and is learning
to work with less. One position has in fact been devoting almost 100% of its time to redevelopment, so we are just properly
coding that person’s time to redevelopment. The Public Works Services Director, Peter Ingram is working with the Community
Development Services Director, Joel Patterson so that he will have the appropriate engineering resources to undertake the large
recycled water construction processes that will soon be moving forward.
The reduction of one planner in the “ current projects” area means that we will not be processing violations of the signs
amortization program ( i. e., time limits for removal of illegal signs), and will be limiting the times that planners are available at the
front counter to help people understand permit requirements.
The department reduced code enforcement by two positions. Code enforcement would no longer process animal, noise, fence,
news racks, signs, and private property parking complaints. They would move some functions to the Fire department ( i. e., weed
abatement) and to the Police department ( i. e., graffiti and inoperable cars, vehicles, etc).
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget keeps the code enforcement function intact and at the present level.
I am doing this with some reorganization; reclassifying one position downward and eliminating a senior building inspector. The
net effect of this ($ 53K) is to keep the function operating at its present level.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could decide to reduce code enforcement by eliminating one CSO ($ 75K), and one building inspector ($ 98K), and
transferring some of the appropriate functions to both the fire department and the police department as appropriate.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could add back the vacant planner position ($ 95K), and or the senior building inspector ($ 120K).
AI- 10
Fire Department
Department’s 4% reduction = $ 516K
City Manager accepted 1.2% = $ 156K
City Manager added back = $ 360K
Department Proposed Reductions
In order to achieve a $ 516K reduction Gerry proposes expanding the number of shifts that Engine 9 ( E9) will be out of service
( OOS). We presently have E9 OOS for 60 shifts out of 365 days of the year. This proposal would take E9 OOS for 206 shifts.
When E9 is OOS, Truck 9 ( T9, at the same location) will then respond first- due to all medical calls with the truck company instead
of the engine company. T9 has been upgraded to Paramedic Status 100% of the time in order to assist with this issue. Taking E9
OOS will mean a slightly longer response time for an engine to respond into the downtown, and it will also mean fewer
inspections by the engine company, and more “ move ups” by Redwood City’s other engine companies if there were to be a fire
call involving E9. This “ moving up” can disrupt training and the fire prevention inspection work of other engine companies.
Taking E9 OOS for additional shifts will mean that our neighboring fire agencies may respond to Redwood City somewhat more
frequently.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget expands E9’ s time OOS from 60 shifts to 104 shifts ( instead of 206 shifts) or from
approximately 1.25 days a week OOS to approximately 2 days a week OOS. This recommendation is based on an analysis of the
departments’ calls per service work load by day of week. That data indicates that two days out of a week the department has lower
call volumes than the remaining five days of the week. The department will continue to use its existing criteria to determine the
best day to take E9 OOS.
This recommended service level also takes into account the existing/ proposed cuts by our neighboring fire departments. Why is
this important to consider? San Mateo County dispatch dropped the concept of using city boundaries for the dispatching of fire
and medical emergency calls. The closest engine is always dispatched regardless of city boundaries. If city “ A” was to close a
station, the neighboring city would respond as necessary. In order to keep a level of equity or balance, all neighboring cities need
to either keep their levels of service the same or cities should make service level cuts similar to one another. If cities A and C both
close a station and saved money, and City B ( situated between A & C) did not, then City B would be subsidizing cities A and C
reductions.
South County ( our fire agency to the north) has already eliminated their engine company in downtown San Carlos ( completely
OOS), and their truck company is running on medical calls similar to Redwood City’s. South County Fire has downgraded their
Alameda engine company to basic life support vs. paramedic life support about 30% of the time. Menlo Park has determined that
they will remove E1 ( Middlefield Road) from service 180 times ( during the nighttime hours) in FY 04- 05. As Redwood City,
South County Fire, and Menlo Park Fire Protection District take engines OOS then we will each be responding into the other
agencies’ jurisdictions more frequently.
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget is based on two rationales:
1. Redwood City has two days a week with lower calls for service. Redwood City Fire will have to manage the removal of
E9 from service an average of two days per week, based on our present criteria for removing an engine.
2. The City Manager’s recommendation attempts to maintain parity or equity with the actions of our neighboring agencies.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could decide to more accurately match the actions of our two neighboring fire jurisdictions and take E9 OOS for 206
shifts or for approximately 4.3 days a week ($ 360K).
Options for Council to Add Additional items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could decide not to expand E9’ s OOS time from 60 shifts to 104 shifts ($ 156K). This action however, in essence,
means that Redwood City will be subsidizing our neighbor’s fire department agencies budget cuts to some degree, as we would be
responding out of jurisdiction more frequently.
AI- 11
Library
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 808K
City Manager accepted 13.5% = $ 731K
City Manager added back = $ 77K
Department Proposed Reductions
In order to reach their 15% target, Dave proposes to close Schaberg branch library on Friday and the Fair Oaks branch library on
Saturday. He is eliminating a library outreach specialist, the school media specialist, a senior library assistant, a librarian, and a
division manager. All positions will be vacant next fiscal year. The library will also cut $ 200,000 from the casual budget which
will result in the elimination of on- call staff to help cover for youth services visiting school classrooms, some delays for checkouts
and for help by reference librarians, new materials will take longer to process and get out on the shelf, and it will take longer to
reshelf the existing collection. All staff will be asked to work more public desk hours.
The library will be unable to replace any of their PCs - even the constantly- used public computers. The department is also losing
their electronic services librarian which is important to them in keeping the library technologically up- to- date, and maintaining
their various software/ hardware systems, and to continue to automate processes that will free up staff resources.
The library is, however, continuing to staff the four homework centers, including the very popular teen homework center. They
will not reduce any hours at the main library, and they will continue to fund the Project Read programs. They will also maintain
the funds devoted to the purchasing of new materials ( i. e., books, magazines, audio- visual materials, etc.). The remaining casual
budget will continue to employ teens and other community members as library pages.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget adds back one- half school media specialist ($ 42K) as staff reached an agreement with
the Redwood City School District that they will fund the other half of this position. This is very important as it will keep the new
collections at all the schools current, and continue to train volunteers and school staff to professionally operate and keep open the
new library/ media centers at every school. This position also has the flexibility to assist the library’s youth service librarians in
outreach efforts to schools.
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget adds back some of the casual hours ($ 35K) so the library can move forward with
training library staff in preparing for self- checkout at all our libraries. This will allow the library to absorb staff reductions with
less impact. Through the Capital Improvement Program’s budget, the Library Director is planning to purchase self- checkout
machines, and make necessary physical changes to fully automate the entire checkout function and other self- service strategies.
The spending of some casual money will save us greater money in the long run.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could eliminate the one- half media specialist ($ 42K). If that happens the Redwood City School District would likely
not fund the other half. Council could also eliminate the casual hours, but that would be counter to implementing the automated
checkout system which saves staff time and money.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The first priority of the library would be to add back the electronic services librarian ($ 84K). This would assure that the library
maintains its important software and hardware systems and it will allow them to aggressively pursue using technology for
customer empowerment and streamlining of operations. The Council may wish to add back the one day closure at Schaberg and
Fair Oaks libraries ($ 32K). It is important to note that the library was very careful when they cut the days at both Schaberg and
Fair Oaks libraries. The department recommends closing each branch on the day with their lowest volume. They did not close
both branches the same day. They made sure that they did not cut the hours to the main library. Hence, if one particular branch
library is closed there will be another branch library to go to, and the main library would be available as an alternative.
AI- 12
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 1.7M
City Manager accepted 13.5% = $ 1.5M
City Manager added back = $ 169K
Department Proposed Reductions
In order to achieve a 15% reduction, Corinne had to eliminate approximately 19 full time equivalent ( FTE) positions. The 15%
reduction will cause the lay off of 1 employee. Listed below are the reductions that the department is making.
Landscape Maintenance Division
There is a reduction of 5.3 positions or a 16% loss of total labor dedicated to landscape maintenance. It will be important for the
City to aggressively pursue artificial turf fields ( recommended by the recycled water task force), remove turf in medians and
replace with low maintenance plantings, and shift ball- field preparation to the sports leagues as soon as possible in order to
mitigate the impacts of fewer landscape maintenance workers. This level of reduction would eliminate the special downtown
planter program. There will be a lower level of maintenance at all parks and medians.
Building Maintenance Division
A reduction of two FTEs – The department believes that we can handle basic preventative maintenance ( to protect our investment
in buildings) at this level, but no special projects or emergency repairs can be handled.
Custodial Services Division
A reduction of two FTEs means there will be less cleaning in the office areas of most City facilities, and they will be focusing the
remaining resources in highly used public areas. However, the public areas are going to look less well taken care of even with this
re- focusing of effort.
Human Services Division
Both the Human Services Financial Assistance ( HSFA) and the Civic Cultural Commission were cut by 15%.
Youth and Teen Services
Eliminate the Kid’s Klub daycare, reduce the childcare coordinator position to half time, and eliminate the summer drop- in free
program at Stulsaft, Stafford, and Mezes Parks. Impact: Dropping the Kids’ Klub may have more pluses than minuses for
Redwood City, as we are currently losing money on this particular program; and, our closure may actually help some other
childcare providers which are having difficulty filling their programs. The department believes that at half time, the childcare
coordinator can remain highly effective for Redwood City. It would, however, eliminate the amount of time this position spends
on Countywide childcare issues. Although we are cutting free drop- in recreation programs at three of the parks, two of the parks
are in areas where many parents can afford alternatives. We are keeping the programs at our after school sites open during the
summer. Those sites are: Taft, Hoover, Fair Oaks, Selby Lane, John Gill, and Hawes. It is still not clear whether space will be
available to continue the program on the Kennedy site. The program operating hours will remain the same; however we are
reducing the hours of the coordinators from 40 to 30 hours ( i. e. cutting back on preparation and planning time).
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget adds back one landscape position ($ 74 + $ 10K in supplies), and one custodian ($ 65K
+ $ 20K supplies). It is important to add back one landscape position to assure that the planting and the maintenance of downtown
is continued at the present service level. I also added back the custodian position, as I am very concerned about allowing our
exceedingly high- use buildings ( CAB, Red Morton, Veterans Memorial Senior Center, Fair Oaks Community Center, and the
Libraries) from becoming dirty and significantly unattractive. We are providing fewer services throughout the City- however, we
are keeping all of our public buildings open, and it is important to assure that the public areas are kept clean and inviting.
AI- 13
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could cut the landscape gardener position and supplies at $ 84K, and/ or the custodial position and supplies at $ 85K
that I have recommended in the budget.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wanted to add additional services to the Recommended Budget, the department recommends the following priorities
for add backs:
One landscape gardener, ($ 74K)
Bring the after school/ park coordinators back from 30 hours back to 40 hours, ($ 93K)
Childcare coordinator from .5 to .75 FTE, ($ 20K)
HHCC back to 03- 04 levels, ($ 24K)
Civic Cultural Commission back to the 03- 04 level, ($ 11K)
3/ 4 facility aide, ($ 43K)
AI- 14
Police Department
Department’s 4% reduction = $ 923K
City Manager accepted 3.4% = $ 768K
City Manager added back = $ 155K
Department Proposed Reductions
The department proposes the following actions to meet its 4% cut:
One sergeant – $ 204K
Two secretaries – $ 150K
Two patrol officers – $ 304K
Two community services officers ( CSOs) – $ 150K
One dispatcher – $ 98K
Miscellaneous supplies and services – $ 17K
Total of $ 923K
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager is recommending the following reductions:
One sergeant – $ 203K
Two secretaries – $ 150K
One patrol officer – $ 150K
Two community service officers ( CSOs) – $ 150K
One dispatcher – $ 98K
Miscellaneous supplies and services–$ 17K
Total of $ 768K
The City Manager’s Recommended Budget is based on the following reasons: the department will transfer either the Juvenile
Services Sergeant or the CCAT Sergeant and their responsibilities to patrol to make up for the loss of the patrol supervisor. This
will leave the same number of sergeants providing supervision on the patrol shifts.
The loss of the two secretaries will mean a redistribution of administrative workload throughout the department. It will take longer
to get some reports out, some phones will be answered by voice mail and there will likely be administrative backlogs. It will put
the department below the minimum in terms of secretarial staffing for a department of its size. The plan is to utilize records
personnel to mitigate some of the increased workload. The miscellaneous supplies and services reductions will be absorbed
throughout the department.
The loss of two CSOs will leave the department with nine CSOs and will reduce investigations and patrol by one CSO. It will
reduce flexibility in scheduling, allowing time- off, working special events and details. ( i. e. 4th of July, ‘ Tis the Season, etc.)
Patrol CSOs currently respond to calls that don’t require a police officer, allowing officers to focus on community oriented
policing activities. A reduction of community service officers in patrol will reduce the amount of time that patrol officers have
available for community oriented policing activities. Investigation CSOs handle fraud, hit- and- run and other investigations of a
less serious nature.
The original staffing study did not recommend an additional dispatcher but the Council at that time added one dispatcher anyway.
The loss of one dispatcher will bring the department to minimum recommended level of the original staffing study. By using a
combination of casual hours and overtime, the department will be able to maintain minimum staffing in the communications
center.
The original staffing study also recommended that four patrol officers be hired, which the Council approved. This
recommendation was based on two criteria: 1) all patrol officers should have 35% of their time available for other than calls for
service, so that they can be involved in proactive community policing activities and 2) the recommendation for hiring four officers
was based on the fact that all officers were working a 4/ 10 schedule ( 10 hours a day - four days a week). The report stated that the
AI- 15
4/ 10 schedule was the most inefficient work schedule. The report noted that if the department went to12 hour shifts there would
be no reason to hire additional patrol officers ( i. e. the department would be appropriately staffed).
Since the study was done, the department has gone to the more efficient 12 hour shifts ( three days a week), 43% of the time.
Carlos and I believe that we can cut one officer from the CCAT Unit without any affect on response times or health and safety
concerns.
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wanted to make further cuts, they could reduce one additional dispatcher position ($ 98K). This would take us below
the recommended level and could cause more overtime than presently budgeted in order to maintain proper staffing. This would
also cause the department to look at a different schedule than the current one. The Council could also decide to cut an additional
CSO ($ 75K), from within the department which would further restrict the flexibility and scheduling of these people and further
reduce the amount of time available for officers to participate in community oriented policing activities.
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wanted to add additional resources to the Police Department budget, they could add, in the following order:
One patrol officer $ 150K
One dispatcher $ 98K
Two community service officers $ 150K
AI- 16
Public Works Services
Department’s 15% reduction = $ 691K
City Manager accepted 13.2% = $ 606K
City Manager added back = $ 85K
Department Proposed Reductions
Peter achieved the 15% target in the general fund by proposing the following cuts, ( since there were quite a few, I will list only the
most significant cuts).
􀂏 A 25% reduction in scheduled crew availability for pavement repair.
􀂏 Impact: In the short term there will be more potholes and small pavement failures, and a longer response time for repairs. In
the long term there would be a gradual lowering of quality standards and the citywide pavement condition index
􀂏 A 50% reduction in the street tree leaf pickup.
􀂏 Impact: The likely clogging of catch basins during wet weather and the possibility that our street sweepers could not complete
their routes on any particular day, due to the amount of leaves that may accumulate in the gutter. There would be an increase
in complaints from the public.
􀂏 Eliminate the downtown festoon tree lighting.
􀂏 Impact: Would degrade the image of the downtown, especially at night, and there would most likely be complaints both from
citizens and business owners.
􀂏 A 25% reduction in crew availability for street drainage/ siphon cleaning.
􀂏 Impact: There could be some increased odor, and possibly some increase in mosquitoes, and consequently an increase in
general neighborhood complaints. Redwood City has this siphon system in two major parts of the city, Woodside Plaza and
Friendly Acres.
􀂏 A 25% reduction in budgeted contract services for street tree pruning.
􀂏 Impact: There would be a longer time between pruning cycles, and when we do provide this service, we would reduce the
amount of pruning we will do on most trees.
􀂏 Reduction in field inspection staffing for the sidewalk project.
􀂏 Impact: Delayed responses to sidewalk repair requests, and possible citizen frustration and/ or complaints. Aesthetics will
diminish slightly over time.
􀂏 A 20% reduction in traffic sign maintenance, and street curb painting.
􀂏 Impact: Would be mainly aesthetics in the short term, but may affect parking enforcement in the long term.
􀂏 A 50% reduction in street legend painting.
􀂏 Impact: Fewer legends painted on a preventative maintenance basis.
􀂏 A 35% reduction in the scheduled crew availability for cleaning lined creeks.
􀂏 Impact: Would be mostly aesthetics.
􀂏 Only replace traffic signal loops when there is full failure.
􀂏 Impact: Would be less signal efficiency, more complaints and some commuter frustration.
City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The City Manager has reinstated the first three reductions listed above. The pavement repair/ street crack sealing, and pothole
repair programs ($ 27K) - maintaining our valuable street infrastructure is crucial, and of great importance to our citizens. The
street tree leaf pickup program, ($ 40K) - this will minimize clogging of catch basins during wet weather, and reduce customer
complaints. In addition, the downtown festoon lighting was added back. I do not think that we should reduce the aesthetics of our
downtown just before we open the retail- cinema project ($ 18K).
Options for Council to Make Additional Cuts to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
The Council could cut any or all of the items that the City Manager has added back into the Recommended Budget ($ 85K for all).
AI- 17
Options for Council to Add Additional Items Back to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
If the Council wants to add additional services to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget, the following are the priorities which
have been listed by the department for selection:
􀂏 Traffic signal loop replacement, $ 15K
􀂏 25% reduction in scheduled maintenance of street drainage and siphon, $ 9K
􀂏 50% reduction of street legend painting, $ 19K
􀂏 35% reduction of cleaning of lined creeks, $ 28K
􀂏 25% reduction of contract tree pruning service, $ 61K
AI- 18
Chart One
15% $ 108,000 15% $ 108,000 0% $ 0
15% $ 72,000 5% $ 24,000 10% $ 48,000
15% $ 28,000 13% $ 24,000 2% $ 4,000
15% $ 158,000 10% $ 106,000 5% $ 53,000
15% $ 139,000 11.5% $ 107,000 3.4% $ 32,000
15% $ 212,000 15% $ 212,000 0% $ 0
16.7% $ 777,000 15.5% $ 724,000 1.2% $ 53,000
4% $ 516,000 1.2% $ 156,000 2.8% $ 360,000
15% $ 808,000 13.5% $ 731,000 1.5% $ 77,000
15% $ 1,706,000 13.5% $ 1,537,000 1.4% $ 169,000
4% $ 923,000 3.4% $ 768,000 0.6% $ 155,000
15% $ 691,000 13.2% $ 606,000 1.8% $ 85,000
Totals: $ 5,103,000 $ 1,036,000
Library
$ 6,138,000
Police
Parks, Recreation &
Community Services
% / $ AMOUNT TAKEN
Community
Development Services
Fire
City Attorney
Public Works Services
Finance
% / $ AMOUNT INCLUDED IN
RECOMMENDED BUDGET
4% / 15%
REDUCTION
Human Resources
City Manager
City Clerk
City Council
DEPARTMENT
AI- 19
Chart Two
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Council
City Manager
Human Resources
Fire
Public Works Services
DEPARTMENT ADDITIONAL CUTS AMOUNT ( Thousands)
None $ 0
Community Contracts: PCRC
Redwood City Family Centers
Finance
Facilitation services
Remainder of .30 of Management Analyst position
Secretary position $ 86
BCC reception $ 2
Community
Development Services
Overtime
1 CSO
Police
Library 1/ 2 Media Specialist position
Take all casual hours proposed from cuts
Parks, Recreation &
Community Services
Total: $ 1,215
Festoon lights downtown $ 18
Eliminate leaf pick up
$ 27
1 Landscape Gardner $ 84
1 Janitor $ 85
$ 75
$ 40
Pavement repainting
$ 9
$ 35
1 CSO
1 Dispatcher position $ 98
$ 10
$ 0
$ 360
None
$ 33
$ 2
$ 42
1 Building Inspector $ 99
Take full 4%, takes E- 9 from 104 shifts recommended, to
206 shifts out of service
Take .30 of Account Clerk position $ 22
$ 75
$ 13
AI- 20
Chart Three
City Attorney None $ 0
City Clerk None $ 0
City Council Conference/ Travel ( presently removed from budget) $ 6
Redwood City International $ 4
City Manager Bring Management Analyst back to .50 $ 22
Refund Community Contracts: Chamber $ 27
P3 $ 11
PCA $ 5
PCRC ( back to 03/ 04) $ 13
Redwood City Family Centers ( back to 03/ 04) $ 4
.17 of Account Clerk position $ 11
Casual hours $ 4
Human Resources 1 Administrative Clerk $ 68
Senior Building Inspector $ 121
Planner $ 95
Fire Add back E- 9 to 03/ 04 service levels $ 156
Library Fill vacant Electronic Services Librarian $ 32
Restore 6th day at Fair Oaks/ Schaberg libraries $ 84
1 Landscape Gardner $ 75
After School Coordinators from 30 hours to 40 hours $ 93
Child Care Coordinator from .50 to .75 $ 20
HHCC ( back to 03- 04) $ 24
Civic Cultural Commission ( back to 03- 04) $ 11
1/ 2 Facility Aide $ 43
Police 1 Police Officer position $ 150
1 CSO $ 75
1 Dispatcher position $ 98
1 CSO $ 75
Traffic Signal Maintenance $ 15
$ 9
50% reduction of street legend painting $ 18
Crew availability to ( 03- 04)- creek cleaning $ 28
25% reduction in street tree pruning $ 61
Total: $ 1,458
25% reduction in scheduled maintenance of street drainage and
siphons
Public Works Services
Parks, Recreation &
Community Services
DEPARTMENT POTENTIAL ADD BACK AMOUNT ( Thousands)
Finance
Community
Development Services
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 1
“ Attachment II”
Service Level Reductions
FY 03- 04
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 2
City Attorney
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Allocate a percentage of staff salaries to services for Capital
Improvement Program ( CIP) and Redevelopment, resulting in some
assignments currently performed by the legal administrator being
assigned to the administrative clerk
• Reduce outside legal services by 19%, resulting in extended response
times of requests for legal services; it is unlikely that the part- time legal
services currently being provided on a shared cost basis with a private
law firm can be maintained
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 3
City Clerk
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in professional services account, which includes savings anticipated
from the installation of permanent cameras in Council chambers, resulting in less
video technician hours
• Elimination of half the budget for the printing and distribution of the 2004 Roster
document
• Overtime reduction impacts coverage needed during the election, and places the
department at risk of not being able to accomplish non- mandated activities
• Reduction in casual labor, office expenses, and training and conferences will result
in delays in meeting mandated activities, responding to information requests, and
community proclamations
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 4
City Council
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Mayor’s annual holiday recognition for the boards, committees, and commissions
will be scaled back significantly
• Reduction to Redwood City International ( RCI) will significantly impact services and
programs that RCI can offer to the community and to our sister cities; will limit the
educational, cultural and business exchanges of ideas and information
• Facilitator services reduction will directly impact the City Council’s priority setting
sessions and other study sessions when an outside facilitator has been used. Limited
use of facilitators in setting/ developing priorities will likely mean we cannot use a
facilitator in personnel evaluations
• Significantly limit Council’s ability to support special unexpected projects and
interesting one- time requests by citizen groups
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 5
City Manager
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Allocate a percentage of staff salaries to Capital Improvement Program ( CIP)
• Elimination of casual position will impact all of City Hall as there is no facility staff
in the building, which means other staff will be pulled away from their
responsibilities for building and equipment set up
• Limit the ability of the City Manager to attend certain meetings/ functions where there
are associated costs, which are often with other government agencies and
associations
• Limit the outreach for the neighborhood grants program, possibly not reaching
individuals or communities that could benefit from program
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 6
City Manager ( con’t)
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction to contracts with several community organizations will have a
wide and varied impact on the community, from services to low income
children and conflict resolution services for the community to economic
development programs and the Fourth of July Celebration
Organization Reduction Amt. Original Amt.
Chamber of Commerce $ 11,475 $ 38,250
Joint Venture Silicon Valley $ 7,500 $ 7,500
Peninsula Celebration Assoc. $ 5,000 $ 10,000
Peninsula Conflict Resolution Ctr. $ 6,825 $ 27,300
Peninsula Policy Partnership ( P3) $ 4,000 $ 15,000
Redwood City 2020 $ 3,750 $ 25,000
Redwood City Family Centers $ 10,000 $ 100,000
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 7
Finance
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Selling staff time to another City will result in delayed responses to departments
for information and less review of transactions, resulting in poorer quality
financial information being recorded and published
• Reduction in Payroll workforce will cause delayed responses to payroll
questions, reduced quality control, and reduction in completion of special
projects
• Elimination of the tax ID program will result in no receipt of information on
income tax- paying businesses located in Redwood City that may not be paying
business licenses
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 8
Finance ( con’t)
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Print budget and annual financial reports in- house, limiting number of copies
available and causing a delay in other administrative responsibilities
• IT will limit overtime to emergency situations only, which will cause a delay in
projects and response times
• Reduction in training will result in less innovation, and may impair our ability to
maintain and troubleshoot system problems
• Staff will use older, slower equipment and in the event of a failure we will be
forced to find money elsewhere
• IT is projecting a cost savings with the implementation of the new telephone
system
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 9
Human Resources
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in employee development staff time and program budget, relying on
external sources thus reducing flexibility of location and schedule
• Reduction in recruitment expenditures ( advertisement, testing, and assessment
centers). Recruitments are anticipated to decrease, however, retirements in key
positions are expected, thus budget reductions will impact the type and scope of
recruitment process
• Elimination of two citywide employee events
• Provide Human Resources services to other public entities totaling at least
$ 22,000
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 10
II. B. General Fund
ii. Operating Departments
Expenditure Reductions
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 11
Community Development
Services
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in permanent and casual staffing throughout the department
will mean:
− Structural review of building permit plans will be postponed for two days
− Minor nuisance complaints ( weeds, animals, fences, and signs) not being
processed; removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles will be handled by
PD and will take longer
− Most traffic studies and investigations based on complaints will not be done
unless there is an obvious dangerous situation; neighborhood traffic calming
requests will be limited and may require hiring an outside consultant to
prepare the necessary studies and meet with neighborhood groups ( if funds
are available), otherwise studies will not be done
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 12
Fire
Summary of 4.5% Reductions
− On days when more than three firefighters are off duty, one engine company
will be placed out of service. The truck company will continue to respond
to that engine company’s medical emergencies ( 70% of all emergency
responses). This could occur approximately 60 days during the entire year
− Some delays in responding to some areas of the City, and will cause some
delays in obtaining the total number of firefighters at a fire scene. Neither
of these delays are seen as life threatening at this time
− Assuming other fire departments might take similar action, Redwood City
and other cities will experience a greater usage of automatic aide between
cities
• Reduction of operational staffing and capping overtime will mean:
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 13
Fire ( con’t.)
Summary of 4.5% Reductions
• The vacant half- time plan checker will be eliminated, resulting in longer
turnaround time on plans and reduced time available for actual field
inspections
• Twenty- five percent of requests for outside schooling/ training will be
denied, which will affect company officers’ development classes
• The life span of personal protective equipment will be extended but stay
within the OSHA standards
• Other reductions will be made in areas of conferences, new software
upgrades and associated professional work will be limited to emergencies
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 14
Library
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in permanent and casual staffing throughout the department
will mean:
− Impacts at seven service desks at all three libraries
− Likely reduction of library hours due to illnesses, emergencies, and
vacations
− Longer lines for checking out material
− Longer time to return materials to shelves
− Slower processing and cataloging of new material
− Delay in responding to reference questions
− Reduction of outreach to schools
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 15
Library ( con’t)
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Delaying or not replacing computers and furnishings, and reducing budgets
for supplies, repair, and maintenance, will result in:
− More expensive repairs or replacement
− Less availability of personal computers for public use and teen homework
center
− Overall aesthetics of the library will suffer as replacements of seating and
signage will be postponed or canceled
− Public may be less informed of library events and services
− Will publish fewer library documents, scale back on volunteer recognition
event and library giveaways
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 16
Parks, Recreation and
Community Services
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in permanent and casual staffing throughout the department
will mean:
− Square footage maintained by each building maintenance worker will
increase as will the response time for non- emergency repairs
− Elimination of Summer Make- a- Circus and several other special events and
programs
− Higher youth to staff ratios and minimal evening staffing levels at
department facilities
− The overall aesthetics of City buildings and landscaped areas will be
impacted
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 17
Parks, Recreation and
Community Services ( con’t)
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Both Herkner and Hoover pools will open only during the summer months
• Seven percent less funding available to non- profit agencies and to cultural arts
organizations
• Cultural commission will be less able to provide funding in support of local
arts groups or their own programs
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 18
Police
Summary of 4.5% Reductions
− Vacancies will take significantly longer to fill, due to freezing 3 over- hire
positions
− Reduced levels of services in community policing, traffic or non- emergency
investigation functions, as there will be reassignments to Patrol
− The department will not operate at full staffing as it consistently has in the
past
− The department will only operate at minimum required patrol staffing on all
holidays except for 4th of July, and no additional personnel will work on
holidays
− The department will no longer staff community events if it requires
overtime ( i. e., Public Safety Day, ‘ Tis the Season, Police canine
demonstrations)
• Reduction in staffing throughout the department will mean:
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 19
Police ( cont’d)
Summary of 4.5% Reductions
− There will no longer be middle school resource officers thus eliminating
intervention/ prevention services; Patrol Officers will respond to report of
incidents at the Middle Schools
− Investigations will be less free to respond to all requests, resulting in less
timely investigations and further decrease in availability for patrol officers
and less availability for Community Policing activities
− The School Gang Education ( GREAT) and DARE programs will be
eliminated
− There will be periods of backlogs in the records section and data entry of the
information that is entered into the department’s record management system
− The Citizen’s Academy and the annual report will be eliminated removing a
connection between the department and our citizens
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 20
Public Works Services
Summary of 7.0% Reductions
• Reduction in staffing throughout the department includes:
− Elimination of the central warehouse, which means all city departments must
purchase and stock their own materials and supplies
− Reduction in residential street cleaning from twice per month to once per
month; and from every week to once every other week for some commercial
and industrial districts
− Decrease in the number of trees pruned and delay in responding to pruning
requests, with the result that over time the condition of the urban forest will
decline
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 21
Public Works Services ( con’t) Summary
of 7.0% Reductions
• 10% reduction in street crack sealing, which will also create delays
in temporary sidewalk repairs by two or three days
• Pavement legends and red curb painting reduced by 15%
• Staff will replace missing or illegible street signs only, elimination
of preventative maintenance street sign program, and elimination of
street light pole painting
• Reduce cleaning of the downtown pavers from four to three
cleanings a year, causing the appearance of the pavers to deteriorate
C i t y o f R e d w o o d C i t y
AII- 22
Summary of
Personnel Reductions
Citywide
Positions 24.04
Overtime Hours 4,700
Casual Labor Hours 25,151
This page left blank intentionally
FIVE- YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS
ix
• Salary and benefit increases are based on current memorandums of understanding and
anticipated costs.
• Property taxes increase 4.0% per year for FY 2004/ 05 and FY 2005/ 06, and 5.0% per year
thereafter.
• Sales taxes increase 3.0% for FY 2004/ 05, 3.5% for FY 2005/ 06, and 5.0% per year thereafter.
• A slow recovery from the recent recession.
• No additional impacts from the State of California beyond those revenue reductions that are
contained in the Governor’s proposed budget ( May release).
• Development fees for all known future projects.
• No general fund support for capital projects other than transfers of utility users’ taxes.
• Increase in retirement costs for non- safety employees beginning in FY 2006/ 07.
x
GENERAL FUND – FIVE YEAR PROJECTION 2004/ 05 THROUGH 2008/ 09 ( in $ 000s)
1998- 99 1999- 2000 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL
$ $ $ $ $
REVENUES
Property Taxes 12,423 13,947 15,404 18,674 18,975
Sales Tax 15,333 18,254 20,842 14,938 15,090
Other Taxes 4,502 5,076 5,221 4,272 4,322
Licenses and Permits 1,669 1,659 2,546 1,107 871
Fines and Forfeitures 266 244 320 441 591
Interest Earnings/ Rentals 1,625 2,231 2,958 2,860 2,021
Revenue from Other Agencies 5,051 6,277 7,625 7,394 7,329
Charges for Services 3,351 3,960 4,466 4,044 4,168
Other Revenues 6,868 4,670 4,696 4,722 5,461
Library 918 1,048 1,004 1,049 1,097
Recreation Revenues 791 1,128 1,119 1,185 1,373
Total Revenues 52,797 58,494 66,201 60,686 61,298
Transfers- In:
Others 345 545 670 731 936
Sandpiper Community Center 131 138 148 156 163
GID 1- 64 Maintenance District 200 200 70 150 64
Total revenues and transfers- in 53,473 59,377 67,089 61,723 62,461
EXPENDITURES
City Council 149 160 176 192 215
City Manager 709 790 837 945 960
City Attorney 398 397 400 504 654
City Clerk 313 353 380 428 465
Human Resources 1,027 1,010 1,071 1,289 1,330
Finance 2,170 2,040 2,406 1,841 2,789
Police 14,665 15,206 16,681 17,260 19,187
Fire 9,423 9,420 9,821 10,319 11,808
Community Development Services 3,574 3,994 4,732 4,818 5,210
Parks & Recreation 7,173 8,096 9,094 10,333 11,240
Library 4,685 4,920 5,293 5,681 6,179
Public Works Services 634 766 1,247 1,206 1,228
Budget Adjustments
Total Expenditures 44,920 47,152 52,138 54,816 61,265
Transfers- Out 8,288 5,924 6,108 14,678 2,069
Total expenditures and transfers- out 53,208 53,076 58,246 69,494 63,334
Net surplus ( deficit) 265 6,301 8,843 - 7,771 - 873
Net surplus ( deficit) as a percentage of
general fund revenues and transfers- in: 0.50% 10.61% 13.18% - 12.59% - 1.40%
Detail of transfers- out:
gas tax operations 237 40 4
gas tax contruction 245 1,133 368 982
traffic safety 830 770 778 1,045 1,087
capital projects 3,582 3,415 4,300 10,775 851
others 3,394 566 658 1,876 131
TOTAL 8,288 5,924 6,108 14,678 2,069
xi
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09
ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
$ $ $ $ $ $
20,257 20,118 20,852 21,895 22,989 24,139
15,170 15,675 16,223 16,872 17,547 18,249
4,797 4,998 5,091 5,295 5,507 5,727
937 1,442 1,117 817 817 1,117
622 706 706 706 706 706
1,266 1,288 1,207 1,170 1,170 1,170
6,283 5,478 5,727 7,427 7,687 7,956
3,649 3,868 3,622 3,587 3,695 3,867
5,257 5,998 6,209 6,426 6,651 6,884
703 551 550 569 589 610
1,543 1,558 1,572 1,627 1,684 1,743
60,485 61,679 62,877 66,392 69,043 72,168
304 244 213 213 213 213
173 182 193 204 215 228
140 150 155 155 155 155
61,102 62,255 63,438 66,964 69,626 72,764
210 204 219 222 226 229
1,010 956 971 1,006 1,042 1,080
707 613 640 663 687 712
526 474 546 524 584 559
1,378 1,225 1,260 1,303 1,347 1,394
3,107 3,171 3,427 3,518 3,612 3,709
20,052 23,470 24,466 25,373 26,314 27,291
12,269 13,814 14,619 15,174 15,750 16,349
4,830 4,678 4,657 4,820 4,989 5,165
11,256 10,387 10,708 11,072 11,449 11,840
5,777 5,147 5,354 5,545 5,743 5,949
1,212 1,136 1,162 1,197 1,233 1,269
1,167 1,214 1,262
62,334 65,275 68,029 71,584 74,190 76,806
1,308 1,092 1,121 1,169 1,225 1,284
63,642 66,367 69,150 72,753 75,415 78,090
- 2,540 - 4,112 - 5,712 - 5,789 - 5,789 - 5,326
- 4.16% - 6.61% - 9.00% - 8.65% - 8.31% - 7.32%
128 2 10 18
1,056 962 985 1,025 1,068 1,112
124 130 136 142 148 153
1,308 1,092 1,121 1,169 1,225 1,284
xii
This page left blank intentionally
Budget Summary OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT 1
Budget Summary - 1
DEPARTMENT
CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED
2004/ 05
2005/ 06
($) ($)
CITY COUNCIL …………………………………………………
.
204,326 218,977
CITY MANAGER ………………………………………………
956,440 971,295
CITY ATTORNEY …………………………………………….…
612,879 639,706
CITY CLERK ……………………………………………………
474,313 545,771
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ………………….
4,779,060 4,763,606
FINANCE …………………………………………………………
7,035,271 7,394,556
FIRE ………………………………………………………………
13,814,364 14,619,484
HUMAN RESOURCES …………………………………………
1,225,102 1,260,739
LIBRARY ……………………………………………………….
5,147,114 5,353,818
PARKS, RECREATION and COMMUNITY SERVICES …….
10,747,121 11,081,852
POLICE …………………………………………………………
23,571,043 24,570,884
PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES……………………………………. 29,386,125 30,843,451
TOTAL 97,953,158 102,264,139
__________________________
( 1) Excludes Debt Service, Capital Projects, Redevelopment Agency, Housing, and Internal Service Funds
Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND – 2004/ 05
Budget Summary - 2
BEGINNING ESTIMATED TRANSFER TOTAL
BALANCE REVENUES IN/( OUT) AVAILABLE
$ $ $ $
GENERAL OPERATING FUNDS
General Fund 14,376,552 59,569,853 ( 4,963,460) 68,982,945
Library Fund 551,100 4,596,014 5,147,114
Recreation Program Fund 1,557,913 ( 330,776) 1,227,137
Sandpiper Park Reserve
Subtotal 14,376,552 61,678,866 ( 698,222) 75,357,196
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Traffic Safety Fund 18,953 270,500 962,458 1,251,911
Special Gas Tax Fund 15,955 1,468,190 ( 32,550) 1,451,595
GID- 64 Maintenance District 713,313 553,860 ( 150,000) 1,117,173
Seaport Centre Maintenance 285,306 281,656 566,962
Seaport Blvd. Landscape Maintenance 63,360 164,491 227,851
Lido Maintenance District 343,211 180,623 523,834
Categorical Grants 1,647,282 1,647,282
Redevelopment Agency 3,561,523 8,211,390 ( 2,227,394) 9,545,519
S. L. E. S. F. Grant 5,964 100,000 105,964
Subtotal 5,007,585 12,877,992 ( 1,447,486) 16,438,091
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
Utility Users Tax 7,140,700 ( 4,816,453) 2,324,247
Gas Tax Construction 346,500 346,500
Transportation Fund 81,206 1,104,831 1,186,037
Capital Projects Fund 5,822,889 233,625 4,268,878 10,325,392
GID Facilities Fees Fund 177,000 150,000 327,000
Water Capital Projects Fund 3,500,000 3,500,000
Sewer Capital Projects Fund 1,035,000 1,035,000
1991 P. F. A. Series - B - Bond Fund 10,000 10,000
Traffic Impact Fees 1,411,916 932,300 2,344,216
Traffic Mitigation Funds 333,789 97,400 431,189
Subtotal 7,836,800 9,658,856 4,333,925 21,829,581
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
General Improvement District 1- 64 1,465,395 2,009,742 3,475,137
Assessment Districts 4,138,595 4,457,965 8,596,560
City Hall Certificates of Participation 11,284,907 338,250 11,623,157
Public Financing Authority 2,162,947 2,467,151 2,227,394 6,857,492
Subtotal 19,051,844 9,273,108 2,227,394 30,552,346
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Parking Fund 724,867 446,982 1,171,849
Water Fund 2,544,218 17,510,340 ( 2,981,946) 17,072,612
Sewer Fund 1,222,467 11,767,362 ( 1,423,165) 11,566,664
Subtotal 4,491,552 29,724,684 ( 4,405,111) 29,811,125
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 50,764,333 123,213,506 10,500 173,988,339
( excluding Internal Service)
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Services Fund 4,794,353 2,613,300 7,407,653
Internal Services Fund 1,786,094 6,653,244 ( 10,500) 8,428,838
Wkrs. Comp. and Emp. Liab. Ins. Fund ( 12,175) 2,345,338 2,333,163
General Liability Insurance Fund ( 6,925) 1,318,817 1,311,892
Subtotal 6,561,347 12,930,699 ( 10,500) 19,481,546
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 57,325,680 136,144,205 193,469,885
( 1) General expenditures are shown net of expenditures that are reimbursed by the Redevelopment Agency
Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND – 2004/ 05
Budget Summary - 3
OPERATIONS CAPITAL TOTAL ENDING
DEBT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDITURE BALANCE
$ $ $ $
58,904,393 ( 1) 58,904,392 10,078,553
5,147,114 5,147,114
1,227,137 1,227,137
182,362
65,278,644 65,278,644 10,260,915
1,232,958 1,232,958 18,953
1,435,640 1,435,640 15,955
428,976 428,976 688,197
62,469 62,469 504,493
144,227 144,227 83,624
229,899 229,899 293,935
1,647,282 1,647,282
5,164,539 2,808,305 7,972,844 1,572,675
100,730 100,730 5,234
10,446,720 2,808,305 13,255,025 3,183,066
2,324,247 2,324,247
346,500 346,500
300,965 850,000 1,150,965 35,072
4,521,500 4,521,500 5,803,892
( 350,291) ( 350,291) 677,291
3,500,000 3,500,000
1,035,000 1,035,000
10,000 10,000
411,000 411,000 1,933,216
431,189
2,625,212 10,323,709 12,948,921 8,880,660
2,009,695 2,009,695 1,465,442
4,258,321 4,258,321 4,338,239
763,250 763,250 10,859,907
4,614,795 4,614,795 2,242,697
11,646,061 11,646,061 18,906,285
433,850 433,850 737,999
15,484,865 15,484,865 1,587,747
10,521,686 10,521,686 1,044,978
26,440,401 26,440,401 3,370,724
116,437,038 13,132,014 129,569,052 44,601,650
2,814,043 2,814,043 4,593,610
6,839,025 6,839,025 1,589,813
2,404,999 2,404,999 ( 71,836)
1,304,041 1,304,041 7,851
13,362,108 13,362,108 6,119,438
129,799,146 13,132,014 142,931,160 50,721,088
Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND – 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 4
BEGINNING ESTIMATED TRANSFER TOTAL
BALANCE REVENUES IN/( OUT) AVAILABLE
$ $ $ $
GENERAL OPERATING FUNDS
General Fund 10,260,915 60,754,473 - 5,196,069 65,819,319
Library Fund 550,100 4,803,718 5,353,818
Recreation Program Fund 1,572,000 - 360,615 1,211,385
Sandpiper Park Reserve
Subtotal 10,260,915 62,876,573 - 752,966 72,384,522
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Traffic Safety Fund 18,953 270,500 984,507 1,273,960
Special Gas Tax Fund 15,955 1,497,730 - 5,093 1,508,592
GID- 64 Maintenance District 688,197 564,542 - 155,000 1,097,739
Seaport Centre Maintenance 504,493 81,775 586,268
Seaport Blvd. Landscape Maintenance 83,624 149,690 233,314
Lido Maintenance District 293,935 186,547 480,482
Categorical Grants 1,600,000 1,600,000
Redevelopment Agency 1,572,675 7,968,693 - 2,088,201 7,453,167
S. L. E. S. F. Grant 5,234 100,000 105,234
Subtotal 3,183,066 12,419,477 ( 1,263,787) 14,338,756
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
Utility Users Tax 7,212,107 - 4,887,436 2,324,671
Gas Tax Construction 511,508 511,508
Transportation Fund 35,072 1,126,930 1,162,002
Capital Projects Fund 5,803,892 202,425 4,178,596 10,184,913
GID Facilities Fees Fund 677,291 100,000 777,291
Water Capital Projects Fund 2,900,000 2,900,000
Sewer Capital Projects Fund 1,085,000 1,085,000
Traffic Impact Fees 1,933,216 313,100 2,246,316
Traffic Mitigation Funds 431,189 81,500 512,689
Subtotal 8,880,660 9,036,062 3,787,668 21,704,390
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
General Improvement District 1- 64 1,465,442 1,994,617 3,460,059
Assessment Districts 4,338,239 4,457,965 8,796,204
City Hall Certificates of Participation 10,859,907 379,725 11,239,632
Public Financing Authority 2,242,697 2,466,612 2,088,201 6,797,510
Subtotal 18,906,285 9,298,919 2,088,201 30,293,405
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Parking Fund 737,999 446,807 1,184,806
Water Fund 1,587,747 17,729,024 - 2,356,043 16,960,728
Sewer Fund 1,044,978 12,366,712 - 1,492,573 11,919,116
Subtotal 3,370,724 30,542,542 ( 3,848,616) 30,064,650
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 44,601,650 124,173,574 10,500 168,785,724
( excluding Internal Service)
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Services Fund 4,593,610 2,633,011 7,226,621
Internal Services Fund 1,589,813 6,963,928 - 10,500 8,543,241
Wkrs. Comp. and Emp. Liab. Ins. Fund ( 71,836) 2,499,223 2,427,387
General Liability Insurance Fund 7,851 1,333,304 1,341,155
Subtotal 6,119,438 13,429,466 - 10,500 19,538,404
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 50,721,088 137,603,039 188,324,127
( 1) General expenditures are shown net of expenditures that are reimbursed by the Redevelopment Agency
Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND – 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 5
OPERATIONS CAPITAL TOTAL ENDING
DEBT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDITURE BALANCE
$ $ $ $
61,466,517 ( 1) 61,466,516 4,352,803
5,353,818 5,353,818
1,211,385 1,211,385
192,757
68,031,720 68,031,720 4,545,560
1,255,007 1,255,007 18,953
1,492,637 1,492,637 15,955
432,658 432,658 665,081
64,742 64,742 521,526
149,648 149,648 83,666
238,487 238,487 241,995
1,600,000 1,600,000
5,261,473 5,261,473 2,191,694
104,471 104,471 763
10,599,123 10,599,123 3,739,633
2,324,671 2,324,671
511,500 511,500 8
306,428 850,000 1,156,428 5,574
4,400,500 4,400,500 5,784,413
100,000 100,000 677,291
2,900,000 2,900,000
1,085,000 1,085,000
290,000 290,000 1,956,316
512,689
2,631,099 10,137,000 12,768,099 8,936,291
1,994,538 1,994,538 1,465,521
4,249,059 4,249,059 4,547,145
824,725 824,725 10,414,907
4,475,133 4,475,133 2,322,377
11,543,455 11,543,455 18,749,950
452,756 452,756 732,050
16,384,069 16,384,069 576,659
11,059,345 11,059,345 859,771
27,896,170 27,896,170 2,168,480
120,701,567 10,137,000 130,838,567 38,139,915
3,016,787 3,016,787 4,209,834
7,069,385 7,069,385 1,473,856
2,558,677 2,558,677 ( 131,290)
1,325,723 1,325,723 15,432
13,970,572 13,970,572 5,567,832
134,672,139 10,137,000 144,809,139 43,707,746
Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND – 2004/ 05
Budget Summary - 6
General Water Sewer Gas Tax Traffic Safety
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
$ $ $ $ $
City Council 204,326
City Manager
Management/ Policy Execution 693,209
Community Promotion 263,231
Total 956,440
City Attorney 612,879
City Clerk 474,313
Community Development Services
Administration 228,809
Building and Inspection 2,041,281
Engineering and Construction 1,231,764
Housing
Planning and Redevelopment 1,176,358
Total 4,678,212
Finance
Revenue Services 1,134,628
Financial Services/ Debt Svc. 922,707
Administrative Support 2,248,781 111,916 53,002
Risk Management
Info. Tech./ Telephone Services
Total 3,171,488 1,246,544 53,002
Fire
Fire Safety 13,814,364
Human Resources
Human Resources 1,225,102
Workers' Compensation
Employment Liability
Total 1,225,102
Library Services 5,147,114
Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.
Human Services 1,145,473
Parks/ Recreation 9,241,997
Building Services
Total 10,387,470
Police
Law Enforcement 23,470,311
Public Works Services
Fleet and MSC Management
Right- of- Way Maintenance 1,019,347 1,127,242 1,232,958
Wastewater Mgmt. Services 117,278 10,468,684 308,398
Water Utility Services 14,238,321
Total 1,136,625 14,238,321 10,468,684 1,435,640 1,232,958
GRAND TOTAL 65,278,644 15,484,865 10,521,686 1,435,640 1,232,958
Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND – 2004/ 05
Budget Summary - 7
Utility Users Other Total Internal
Tax Fund Funds All Funds Service
$ $ $ $
204,326 City Council
City Manager
693,209 Management/ Policy Execution
263,231 Community Promotion
956,440 Total
612,879 City Attorney
474,313 City Clerk
Community Development Services
228,809 Administration
2,041,281 Building and Inspection
100,848 1,332,612 Engineering and Construction
1,647,282 1,647,282 Housing
5,164,539 6,340,897 Planning and Redevelopment
6,912,669 11,590,881 Total
Finance
37,953 1,172,581 Revenue Services
11,672,061 12,594,768 Financial Services/ Debt Svc.
2,324,247 202,037 4,939,983 Administrative Support
1,304,041 Risk Management
2,084,381 Info. Tech./ Telephone Services
2,324,247 11,912,051 18,707,332 3,388,422 Total
Fire
13,814,364 88,771 Fire Safety
Human Resources
1,225,102 Human Resources
2,404,999 Workers' Compensation
Employment Liability
1,225,102 2,404,999 Total
5,147,114 Library Services
Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.
1,145,473 Human Services
359,651 9,601,648 Parks/ Recreation
2,454,548 Building Services
359,651 10,747,121 2,454,548 Total
Police
100,730 23,571,041 2,013,408 Law Enforcement
Public Works Services
3,011,960 Fleet and MSC Management
367,977 3,747,524 Right- of- Way Maintenance
499,020 11,393,380 Wastewater Mgmt. Services
6,900 14,245,221 Water Utility Services
873,897 29,386,125 3,011,960 Total
2,324,247 20,158,998 116,437,038 13,362,108 GRAND TOTAL
Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND – 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 8
General Water Sewer Gas Tax Traffic Safety
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
$ $ $ $ $
City Council 218,977
City Manager
Management/ Policy Execution 725,068
Community Promotion 246,227
Total 971,295
City Attorney 639,706
City Clerk 545,771
Community Development Services
Administration 238,097
Building and Inspection 2,133,358
Engineering and Construction 1,280,925
Housing
Planning and Redevelopment 1,004,915
Total 4,657,295
Finance
Revenue Services 1,205,058
Financial Services/ Debt Svc. 967,656
Administrative Support 2,459,838 133,121 62,369
Risk Management
Info. Tech./ Telephone Services
Total 3,427,494 1,338,179 62,369
Fire
Fire Safety 14,619,484
Human Resources
Human Resources 1,260,739
Workers' Compensation
Employment Liability
Total 1,260,739
Library Services 5,353,818
Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.
Human Services 1,189,769
Parks/ Recreation 9,518,427
Building Services
Total 10,708,196
Police
Law Enforcement 24,466,413
Public Works Services
Fleet and MSC Management
Right- of- Way Maintenance 1,043,690 1,169,341 1,255,007
Wastewater Mgmt. Services 118,842 10,996,976 323,296
Water Utility Services 15,045,890
Total 1,162,532 15,045,890 10,996,976 1,492,637 1,255,007
GRAND TOTAL 68,031,720 16,384,069 11,059,345 1,492,637 1,255,007
Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND – 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 9
Utility Users Other Total Internal
Tax Fund Funds All Funds Service
$ $ $ $
218,977 City Council
City Manager
725,068 Management/ Policy Execution
246,227 Community Promotion
971,295 Total
639,706 City Attorney
545,771 City Clerk
Community Development Services
238,097 Administration
2,133,358 Bldg. Insp./ Code Enforcement
106,311 1,387,236 Engineering and Construction
1,600,000 1,600,000 Housing
5,261,473 6,266,388 Planning and Redevelopment
6,861,473 11,625,079 Total
Finance
39,711 1,244,769 Revenue Services
11,575,955 12,543,611 Financial Services/ Debt Svc.
2,324,671 202,132 5,182,131 Administrative Support
1,325,723 Risk Management
2,163,105 Info. Tech./ Telephone Services
2,324,671 11,817,798 18,970,511 3,488,828 Total
Fire
14,619,484 88,771 Fire Safety
Human Resources
1,260,739 Human Resources
2,558,677 Workers' Compensation
Employment Liability
1,260,739 2,558,677 Total
5,353,818 Library Services
Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.
1,189,769 Human Services
373,656 9,892,083 Parks/ Recreation
2,526,451 Building Services
373,656 11,081,852 2,526,451 Total
Police
104,471 24,570,884 2,086,947 Law Enforcement
Public Works Services
3,220,898 Fleet and MSC Management
378,530 3,846,568 Right- of- Way Maintenance
504,979 11,944,093 Wastewater Mgmt. Services
6,900 15,052,790 Water Utility Services
890,409 30,843,451 3,220,898 Total
2,324,671 20,047,807 120,701,567 13,970,572 GRAND TOTAL
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 10
Transfers- in
0.93%
Sales Tax
25.18%
Interest &
Rents
2.07%
Licenses &
Permits
2.32%
From Other
Agencies
8.80%
Charges for
Services
6.21%
Other Revenue
13.02%
Fines &
Forfeitures
1.13%
Other Taxes
8.03%
Prop. Tax
32.31%
General Fund Revenues 2004/ 05
$ 62.255 million
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 11
General Fund Expenditures 2004/ 05
$ 66.367 million
Others
10.0%
Transfers- out
1.6%
Police
35.4%
Fire
20.8%
Com. Dev.
7.0%
Public Works
1.7%
Parks & Rec.
15.7%
Library
7.8%
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 12
General Fund Revenues 2005/ 06
$ 63.438 million
Transfers- in
Other Revenue 0.9%
13.1%
Prop. Tax
32.9%
Sales Tax
Charges for 25.6%
Services
5.7%
From Other
Agencies
9.0%
Interest & Rents
1.9%
Fines & Foreitures
1.1%
Licenses &
Permits
2.1% Other Taxes
8.0%
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 13
Others
10.2%
Transfers- out
1.6%
Com. Devel.
6.7%
Public Works
1.7%
Parks & Rec.
15.5%
Library
7.7% Police
35.4%
Fire
21.1%
General Fund Expenditures 2005/ 06
$ 69.150 million
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 14
Fixed Assets
0.2%
Employee Costs
68.7%
Supplies &
Services
17.1%
Internal Services
13.7%
General Fund 2004/ 05
Where $ Spent
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 15
General Fund 2005/ 06
Where $ Spent
Fixed Assets
0.2%
Employee Costs
69.3%
Internal Services
13.9%
Supplies &
Services
16.6%
Budget Summary GRAPHS
Budget Summary - 16
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
99/ 00 00/ 01 01/ 02 02/ 03 03/ 04 04/ 05
Property Tax Growth
Increases in Assessed Valuation
Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2004/ 05 AND 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 17
2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET
$ $ $ $ $ $
GENERAL FUND
A PROPERTY TAXES
1 Current Year Secured Tax 16,934,827 17,178,975 17,093,025 17,451,199 18,027,587 18,730,090
2 Current Year Unsecured 1,640,962 1,730,202 1,500,577 1,643,536 1,615,000 1,647,000
3 Prior Year Taxes 97,735 65,836 25,000 ( 5,000) 25,000 25,000
4 Teeter Plan/ ERAF Return from County 1,167,205 450,000 450,000
Total Property Taxes 18,673,524 18,975,013 18,618,602 20,256,940 20,117,587 20,852,090
B OTHER TAXES & FEES
1 Sales and Use Tax 14,937,621 15,090,100 14,403,636 15,170,020 15,674,559 16,223,169
2 Franchises Fees 1,227,900 1,094,168 1,195,291 1,187,000 1,197,600 1,209,412
3 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,498,249 1,554,934 1,593,840 1,797,135 2,038,400 2,119,936
4 Property Transfer Tax 502,735 518,016 550,000 600,000 550,000 550,000
5 Business Licenses 1,043,245 1,154,487 1,050,000 1,213,300 1,212,000 1,212,000
Total Other Taxes 19,209,750 19,411,705 18,792,767 19,967,455 20,672,559 21,314,517
C LICENSES AND PERMITS
1 Building Permits 1,044,612 729,748 1,000,000 810,000 1,300,000 1,000,000
2 Other Licenses and Permits 8,812 12,020 5,500 12,000 12,000 12,000
3 Parking Permits 15,000 25,000
4 Fire Permits 53,523 128,854 110,000 100,000 105,000 105,000
Total Licenses and Permits 1,106,947 870,622 1,115,500 937,000 1,442,000 1,117,000
D FINES AND FORFEITURES
1 Parking Fines 430,926 575,393 600,000 600,000 684,000 684,000
2 Administrative Citation Fines 10,558 15,548 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000
Total Fines and Forfeitures 441,484 590,941 622,000 622,000 706,000 706,000
E USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY
1 Interest Income 2,616,042 1,661,765 1,312,675 866,000 857,000 770,500
2 Rents and Concessions 244,217 360,097 268,000 400,000 431,000 436,000
Total Uses of Money and Property 2,860,259 2,021,862 1,580,675 1,266,000 1,288,000 1,206,500
F REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES
1.1 Motor Vehicle In- Lieu Fee 4,212,755 4,350,686 4,584,143 3,673,759 4,447,129 4,625,014
1.2 Enhanced MV Collections 68,365 68,350 68,000 68,000 68,000 68,000
2 Proposition 172 Sales Tax 643,344 604,703 619,140 575,000 592,250 610,018
3 Police Officer Training 51,508 52,908 6,445
4 Police Athletic League 11,231 86,319 27,050
5 Homeowner Property Tax Relief 215,640 204,032 207,000 207,000 208,000 208,000
6 Off Highway License Fee 748 2,027 2,000 2,230 2,200 2,200
7 State- Mandated Program Reimbursement 246,986 442 42
8 Recreation Program Grants 760,638 770,183 660,000 535,000 525,000 525,000
9 State Booking Fee Reimbursements 284,417 284,417 284,417
10 Contribution for Streets 23,000 31,831 31,900 31,900 31,000 31,000
11 Fair Oaks Information and Referral 75,690 60,688 27,917 58,726 58,726 58,726
12 Fair Oaks Center Contribution/ Grants 296,381 321,712 270,881 270,881 270,881 270,881
13 Paramedic Program Contribution 195,818 200,996 200,000 200,996 200,996 200,996
14 Port of Redwood City Contribution 307,739 290,088 389,000 342,000 573,520 627,000
15 State Take- away ( 1,500,000) ( 1,500,000)
Total Revenue from Other Agencies 7,394,260 7,329,382 7,059,981 6,283,446 5,477,702 5,726,835
G CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES
1 Zoning Fees 96,179 62,670 110,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
2 Sale of Maps and Publications 2,088 1,335 5,000 500 500 500
3 Fire Services 351,612 303,275 337,000 295,700 297,100 300,200
4 Fire Inspection Fees 5,362 1,289 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000
5 Police Services 313,642 351,109 316,000 238,000 238,000 238,000
6 Plan Checking Fees 342,383 308,451 300,000 302,300 432,500 330,000
7 Garbage Collection Franchise Fees 1,573,591 1,501,001 1,676,780 1,541,000 1,541,000 1,579,525
8 Engineering and Subdivision Fees 449,659 300,819 360,000 260,000 310,000 310,000
9 Accounting Services 57,633 58,668 61,736 71,736 74,000 62,000
10 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges 2,930 28,504 27,000 30,500 20,500 20,500
11 Senior Advisory Council Reimbursement 175,947 237,954 259,362 150,000 232,000 259,362
12 E. I. R. Fees 523,027 822,146 250,000 375,000 450,000 250,000
13 SBSA Landscape Maintenance Services 68,648 70,353 71,880 71,880 85,309 85,309
14 Shopping Cart Collection Fees 81,797 121,333 90,000 80,000 85,000 85,000
15 Planning Cost Recovery 130,000
Total Charges for Current Services 4,044,498 4,168,907 3,866,258 3,648,616 3,867,909 3,622,396
Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2004/ 05 AND 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 18
2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET
$ $ $ $ $ $
H OTHER REVENUE
1 Sale of Property 6,500
2 Water Fund 1,209,352 1,265,062 1,264,292 1,264,292 1,570,950 1,593,450
3 Sewer Fund 852,671 898,187 920,833 920,833 1,054,457 1,108,887
4 Parking Fund 44,454 43,846 42,703 42,703 36,527 36,527
5 Interdepartmental Operating Transfers 1,680,129 1,925,922 2,011,843 1,860,016 2,198,520 2,288,117
6 Other Revenues 935,608 1,328,527 790,417 1,162,843 1,137,642 1,182,155
Total Other Revenue 4,722,214 5,461,544 5,030,088 5,257,187 5,998,096 6,209,136
I LIBRARY REVENUE
1 Library Grants 740,206 771,460 302,122 350,600 200,000 200,000
2 Fair Oaks Library Contribution 142,456 167,402 167,400 170,000 170,000 170,000
3 Library Services 166,351 157,797 151,281 182,200 181,100 180,100
Total Library Revenue 1,049,013 1,096,659 620,803 702,800 551,100 550,100
J RECREATION REVENUES
1 Recreation Program Fees 1,185,303 1,373,103 1,583,300 1,543,078 1,557,913 1,572,000
Total General Fund Revenues 60,687,252 61,299,738 58,889,974 60,484,522 61,678,866 62,876,573
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
A TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
1 Total Traffic Fines 369,275 306,318 340,000 270,516 270,500 270,500
B GAS TAX OPERATING FUNDS
1 Gas Tax Section 2107 and 2017.5 640,393 638,626 658,920 620,481 626,690 632,960
2 Gas Tax Section 2105 481,181 475,851 490,620 467,211 471,880 476,600
3 Gas Tax Section 2106 379,698 363,648 376,380 351,104 354,620 358,170
4 Gas Tax Interest Income 6,211 4,096
5 Hauling Fees and Miscellaneous 40,035 14,678 15,000 108,000 15,000 30,000
Total Gas Tax Funds 1,547,518 1,496,899 1,540,920 1,546,796 1,468,190 1,497,730
C MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
1 GID 1- 64 542,057 562,402 507,911 542,650 553,860 564,542
2 Seaport Centre 275,562 317,940 271,034 271,034 281,656 81,775
3 Seaport Boulevard 140,965 153,587 157,682 157,682 164,491 149,690
4 Lido Area 170,610 172,109 162,480 174,899 180,623 186,547
Total Maintenance District Funds 1,129,194 1,206,038 1,099,107 1,146,265 1,180,630 982,554
D FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
1 Federal Law Enforcement Grants 149,268 44,937
2 Interest Income 8,954 6,679 1,300
Total Federal Law Enforcement Grants 8,954 155,947 46,237
E CATEGORICAL GRANTS
1 Community Development Block Grant 1,422,000 1,399,000 1,372,873 1,372,873 1,347,282 1,300,000
2 Program Income 78,709 77,044 132,023 132,023 300,000 300,000
3 Other Grants 209,007 208,037
Total Grants 1,709,716 1,684,081 1,504,896 1,504,896 1,647,282 1,600,000
F REDEVELOPMENT HOUSING FUND
1 Property Tax Increment 2,615,900 2,529,494 2,422,285 1,660,080 1,656,800 1,689,936
2 Interest Income 128,955 118,059 71,588 141,946 76,458 11,731
3 Miscellaneous Revenue 62,829 27,975 138,626
Total Redevelopment Housing Fund 2,807,684 2,675,528 2,493,873 1,940,652 1,733,258 1,701,667
G REDEVELOPMENT GENERAL FUND
1 Property Tax Increment 5,315,058 5,148,365 4,185,712 6,056,451 6,052,026 6,173,066
2 Interest Income 204,620 517,554 300,000 607,960 426,106 93,960
3 Other Revenues 43,815,949
Total Redevelopment General Fund 5,519,678 5,665,919 4,485,712 50,480,360 6,478,132 6,267,026
Total All Redevelopment Agency Funds 8,327,362 8,341,447 6,979,585 52,421,012 8,211,390 7,968,693
H S. L. E. S. F. GRANT
1 S. L. E. S. F. Grant 153,398 151,555 150,000 113,683 100,000 100,000
2 Interest Income 14,971 1,484 500
Total S. L. E. S. F Grant 168,369 153,039 150,000 114,183 100,000 100,000
Total Special Revenue Funds 13,260,388 13,343,769 11,614,508 57,049,905 12,877,992 12,419,477
Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2004/ 05 AND 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 19
2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET
$ $ $ $ $ $
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1 Utility Users Tax 6,924,217 7,009,817 7,070,000 7,070,000 7,140,700 7,212,107
2 Other Revenues 62,375 1,991,154 8,083,654
3 Interest Income 606,374 839,854 611,422 375,000 233,625 202,425
Total Capital Projects Fund 7,592,966 9,840,825 7,681,422 15,528,654 7,374,325 7,414,532
B TRANSPORTATION FUND
1 Measure ' A' Funds 1,118,635 1,047,081 1,065,900 1,053,529 1,074,600 1,096,090
2 Interest Income 96,595 58,231 25,000 42,946 30,231 30,840
Total Measure ' A' Funds 1,215,230 1,105,312 1,090,900 1,096,475 1,104,831 1,126,930
C PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION FUND
1 Series - B- Interest Income 3,570 2,132
D GID 1- 64 FACILITIES FEES FUND
1 Facility Fees 2,566,195
2 Interest Income 522,365 599,782 100,000 307,000 150,000 100,000
3 Other Revenues 90,000
Total GID 1- 64 Facilities Fees Fund 3,088,560 689,782 100,000 307,000 150,000 100,000
E CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FUND
1 Transportation Grants 416,157 1,391,898 7,600,000 7,600,000
2 Other Grants 551,465 39,166 1,000,000
Total Transportation Construction Grants Fund 967,622 1,431,064 8,600,000 7,600,000
F TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES FUND
1 Developer Contributions 411,633
2 Interest Income 166,812 155,177 134,800 134,800 97,400 81,500
Total Traffic Mitigation Fees Fund 578,445 155,177 134,800 134,800 97,400 81,500
G TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FUND
1 Traffic Impact Fees 208,551 13,514 55,000 110,000 792,000 219,500
2 Interest Income 294,707 255,288 304,000 161,600 140,300 93,600
Total Traffic Impact Fees Fund 503,258 268,802 359,000 271,600 932,300 313,100
H ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOND PROCEEDS AND INTEREST INCOME
1 Redwood Shores Traffic Improvement 212,095 152,355 5,600,000 7,812,216
2 Pacific Shores Traffic Improvement 350,762 24,787
Total Assessment District Fund 562,857 177,142 5,600,000 7,812,216
Total Capital Project Funds 14,512,508 13,670,236 23,566,122 32,750,745 9,658,856 9,036,062
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
A GID 1- 64 FACILITIES BONDS
1 Assessments 1,362,692 1,394,704 1,390,775 1,390,775 1,354,927 1,344,190
2 Interest Income 6,991 8,273
Total GID 1 - 64 Facilities Fund 1,369,683 1,402,977 1,390,775 1,390,775 1,354,927 1,344,190
B GID 1- 64 RECLAMATION BONDS
1 Assessments 677,546 675,618 670,110 670,110 644,815 640,427
2 Interest Income 13,806 13,124 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total GID 1- 64 Reclamation Fund 691,352 688,742 680,110 680,110 654,815 650,427
C PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
1 Rental Income 1,733,801 2,169,534 2,362,902 1,979,016 2,292,151 2,291,612
2 Interest Income 151,119 149,887 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
Total Public Finance Authority 1,884,920 2,319,421 2,442,902 2,059,016 2,372,151 2,371,612
D 1997 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS
1 Interest Income 95,297 95,667 100,000 95,000 95,000 95,000
E CITY HALL C. O. P. S.
1 Interest Income 52,565 256,640 604,500 234,000 338,250 379,725
Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2004/ 05 AND 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 20
2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET
$ $ $ $ $ $
F SEAPORT CONSOLIDATED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
1 Assessments 1,324,919 1,339,321 1,307,639 1,307,639 1,297,848 1,297,848
2 Interest Income 56,625 53,729 17,697 16,000 16,000
Total Seaport Consolidated Assessment District Fu 1,381,544 1,393,050 1,307,639 1,325,336 1,313,848 1,313,848
G PACIFIC SHORES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
1 Assessments 2,046,502 2,083,397 2,083,397 2,101,222 2,101,222
2 Interest Income 121,871 64,945 25,000 25,000 25,000
Total Pacific Shores Assessment District Fund 121,871 2,111,447 2,083,397 2,108,397 2,126,222 2,126,222
H REDWOOD SHORES TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
1 Assessments 406,585 1,043,028 1,043,028 1,005,895 1,005,895
2 Interest Income 17,407 10,561 12,000 12,000 12,000
Total Pacific Shores Assessment District Fund 17,407 417,146 1,043,028 1,055,028 1,017,895 1,017,895
Total Debt Service Funds 5,614,639 8,685,090 9,652,351 8,947,662 9,273,108 9,298,919
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
A PARKING
1 Property Tax 32,332 25,980 22,700 22,700 23,200 23,700
2 Parking Fees 470,197 457,536 483,963 405,851 405,851 405,851
3 Interest Income 25,588 24,647 22,714 22,261 17,931 17,256
Total Parking Fund 528,117 508,163 529,377 450,812 446,982 446,807
B WATER UTILITY
1 Interest Income 747,242 612,293 129,430 300,811 55,340 24,024
2 Facility Fees 267,446 239,378 260,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
3 Connection Fees 110,130 48,826 60,000 60,000 90,000 90,000
4 Basic Service Charges 4,623,136 4,870,719 5,350,946 4,850,946 5,200,000 5,300,000
5 Water Sales 8,891,209 8,631,103 10,685,812 9,283,825 11,850,000 12,000,000
6 Miscellaneous Revenues 92,035 79,551 62,108 110,000 65,000 65,000
Total Water Utility Fund 14,731,198 14,481,870 16,548,296 14,855,582 17,510,340 17,729,024
C SEWER UTILITY
1 Interest Income 194,754 151,955 26,394 96,224 51,173 45,748
2 Facility Fees 48,049 20,459 25,000 35,000 50,000 75,000
3 Sewer Connection Fees 17,800 10,200 11,500 20,000 30,000 45,000
4 Sewer Service Charges 8,850,588 9,086,598 7,924,000 8,123,600 9,849,719 10,350,773
5 Fair Oaks District 31,367 9,309 1,430,000 1,382,004 1,492,565 1,544,804
6 Emerald Lakes Area 313,847 161,460 320,000 202,000 218,160 225,796
7 Oak Knoll Area 21,171 21,840 44,000 27,600 29,808 30,851
8 Woodside Sewer Service 19,029 20,013 20,613 21,238 22,937 23,740
9 Miscellaneous Revenues 53,488 11,743 16,767 65,000 23,000 25,000
Total Sewer Utility Fund 9,550,093 9,493,577 9,818,274 9,972,666 11,767,362 12,366,712
Total Enterprise Funds 24,809,408 24,483,610 26,895,947 25,279,060 29,724,684 30,542,542
Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2004/ 05 AND 2005/ 06
Budget Summary - 21
2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET
$ $ $ $ $ $
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
A EQUIPMENT SEVICES FUND
1 Internal Service Charges 2,342,158 2,865,879 2,491,414 2,491,414 2,430,928 2,460,885
2 Interest Income 268,769 225,563 159,071 160,008 144,212 133,966
3 Miscellaneous 64,932 33,773 38,960 39,885 38,160 38,160
Total Equipment Services Fund 2,675,859 3,125,215 2,689,445 2,691,307 2,613,300 2,633,011
B INTERNAL SERVICES FUND
1 Facility Maintenance Service